Culture Intelligent Design Naturalism News

NPR is anti-science?

Spread the love

Lots of people with time on their hands claim we are anti-science (just like some claim that atheist mathematician Peter Woit and anti-ID biology prof blogger PZ Myers are “creationists” (here and here).

So it’s interesting to hear the “anti-science” label applied to NPR (National Public Radio) in the United States.

Here, at Forbes:

There are numerous other ways in which NPR and its affiliates reveal their biases–which are manifested not only by political favoritism but also by a kind of back-to-Nature, New Age-y fundamentalism that embraces environmental myths and hyperbole and is systematically antagonistic to certain sectors of science and technology. The “Living on Earth” program, in particular, seems to reflect reporting from a parallel universe devoid of balance or objectivity in which every radical environmental anxiety and prejudice is accepted uncritically.

The nationally syndicated Diane Rehm show, whose selection of guests is a veritable showcase for systematic bias, is consistently anti-science and anti-technology while it promotes big and paternalistic government and pillories the Right. Rehm views representatives of self-interested, anti-industry, radical NGOs as offering worthy and objective expertise while genuinely disinterested academics or industry-affiliated scientists are treated as shills and hucksters.

Rehm and others at NPR seem to have it in for genetic engineering in particular.

Author Henry I. Miller doesn’t think they should be getting public (or private) funds.

Of course, being “anti-science” means being against the official religion, so it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “NPR is anti-science?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing.
    As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    ,,,even though modern science was born out of Christian philosophical/epistemological presuppositions,,, atheists continue, as was highlighted in the recent ‘Cosmos’ series with Tyson, to perpetuate the completely false myth that Christianity is anti-science. As to how this false myth originated and continues to be perpetuated, the following video is very informative for explaining the origins, and perpetuation, of this false myth,,,

    The War that Never Was: Exploding the Myth of the Historical Conflict Between Christianity and Science – video
    https://vimeo.com/41224717

    Moreover, atheistic materialism, besides not being at the founding of modern science, leads to the epistemological failure of science, i.e. materialism/atheism is in fact the worldview that is ‘anti-science’!,,

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True – video
    Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
    Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs

    The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson PhD. – video
    https://vimeo.com/75897668

    Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? – On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical – By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012
    Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we’d be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false — non-physical essences exist. But, what’s their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can’t be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we’re just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all.
    http://www.patheos.com/Evangel.....#038;max=1

    Verse:

    Isaiah 55:3
    Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.

    Music: (theme: O’Leary gets fed up with all the hate from atheists and finally turns her Teddy Bear loose on neo-Darwinists) 🙂

    Imagine Dragons – Radioactive
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvTqknDobU

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    correction, preceding post should read like this instead:

    It is interesting to note that, even though modern science was born out of Christian philosophical/epistemological presuppositions,,,

    Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video – (Notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/32145998

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing.
    As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    ,,,even though modern science was born out of Christian philosophical/epistemological presuppositions,,, atheists continue, as was highlighted in the recent ‘Cosmos’ series with Tyson, to perpetuate the completely false myth that Christianity is anti-science. As to how this false myth originated and continues to be perpetuated, the following video is very informative for explaining the origins, and perpetuation, of this false myth,,,

    The War that Never Was: Exploding the Myth of the Historical Conflict Between Christianity and Science – video
    https://vimeo.com/41224717

    Moreover, atheistic materialism, besides not being at the founding of modern science, leads to the epistemological failure of science, i.e. materialism/atheism is in fact the worldview that is ‘anti-science’!,,

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True – video
    Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
    Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs

    The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson PhD. – video
    https://vimeo.com/75897668

    Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? – On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical – By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012
    Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we’d be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false — non-physical essences exist. But, what’s their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can’t be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we’re just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all.
    http://www.patheos.com/Evangel.....#038;max=1

    Verse:

    Isaiah 55:3
    Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.

    Music: (theme: O’Leary gets fed up with all the hate from atheists and finally turns her Teddy Bear loose on neo-Darwinists) 🙂

    Imagine Dragons – Radioactive
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvTqknDobU

  3. 3
    humbled says:

    The irony of course is that the Darwin faithful have held science hostage for almost 200 years. When will they be brought to justice for their acts of terrorism against science. Their insane philosophies are responsible for the loss of millions as well.

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    I suspect you would share my view, humbled, namely, when the multinationals are called to account.

Leave a Reply