In Defending “Transgenderism,” the Left Again Employs Scientism

In defending the hideously evil “transgender” agenda, the left frequently hails so-called “medical experts,” the “medical community,” “medical consensus,” and the like. In other words, we’re supposed to believe that men can become women, and vice versa, because the “expert class” has told us this is so. This is clearly the case in the recently decided Skrmetti case, where the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upheld legislation from the state of Tennessee that protects children from medical mutilation in the name of “transgenderism.” 

Arguments from the left during the Skrmetti proceedings, and the left’s many complaints after SCOTUS’s 6-3 decision, often referred to the “expert class” as they tried to make their case for the absurd and evil idea that children could be subjected to heinous medical procedures in an ignorant and foolish attempt to change their sex. Thankfully, SCOTUS was having none of it, especially Justice Clarence Thomas.

In a separate, concurring opinion, Justice Thomas slams the left’s so-called “expert class.” Thomas writes,

The Court rightly rejects efforts by the United States and the private plaintiffs to accord outsized credit to claims about medical consensus and expertise. The United States [under the Biden Admn.] asserted that “the medical community and the nation’s leading hospitals overwhelmingly agree” with the Government’s position that the treatments outlawed by SB1 [the TN legislation] can be medically necessary. Brief for United States 35; see also Brief for Respondents in Support of Petitioner 5 (asserting that “[e]very major medical association in the United States” supports this position). The implication of these arguments is that courts should defer to so-called expert consensus.

There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class. First, so-called experts have no license to countermand the “wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.”…Second, contrary to the representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children. Third, notwithstanding the alleged experts’ view that young children can provide informed consent to irreversible sex-transition treatments, whether such consent is possible is a question of medical ethics that States must decide for themselves. Fourth, there are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.

Note that in his first and third points, Justice Thomas is basically saying that scientists (medical doctors, etc.) aren’t necessarily good legislators or policy makers. C.S. Lewis agreed. In 1958, in Willing Slaves of the Welfare State, Lewis wrote,

[T]he new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists’ puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man…I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in.

The “expert class” and Lewis’s “specialists in power” are one and the same. After the Skrmetti ruling, the left continued to its appeal to their “expert class.” Writing of “puberty-blocking drugs and hormone therapies,” Scientific American declared “Their use for gender dysphoria is currently supported by the American Medical Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and other important medical institutions.”

In a press release post Skrmetti, the American Academy of Pediatrics—no-doubt considering themselves a part of the “expert class”—stated “Gender-affirming care is medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria and is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience, and scientific consensus.”

In an interview after the Skrmetti ruling was announced, on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes show, the aptly named “Chase Strangio”—the ACLU “transgender” (a “strangely” deceived woman pretending to be a man) lawyer who argued Skrmetti before SCOTUS—regularly referred to “doctors” or “experts” in attempting to make the case that we should allow children to be subjected to ghastly “transgender” treatments.

In other words, according to the left, we must completely surrender to transgender agenda because of “science.” Of course, real science is no friend to “transgenderism,” so the left must again rely on “scientism.” Whether or not you’re familiar with scientism, if you’re at least four years old, you’ve lived it.

The Covid era that we all suffered under was saturated with scientism. Anthony Fauci, et al reeked of scientism! Of course, scientism is not science. It is an ideology that is often confused with science. It is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority.

Scientism seeks to elevate the methods of natural science to a level where it is the bar by which every other intellectual discipline is held. Scientism ridicules faith and religion and tells us that “God is dead.” Scientism tells us that the “debate is over,” so shut up and get in line. Again, this was never more evident and real for us all than during the Covid era.

The left regularly employs scientism. Whether abortion, “climate change,” immigration, and the like, the modern left frequently appeals to the “experts” in an attempt to get their way. Adherents of scientism promote fear and anger to try and scare or enrage enough followers to accomplish their goals.

Leftists are more prone to fall into scientism because of their abandonment of God and His absolute truths. The “transgender” movement stands opposed to one of the oldest truths in the history of humanity, so of course “transgender” apologists must resort to scientism. Thank God, most of America simply isn’t falling for it. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2025, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

 

Anthony Fauci: Prophet of Scientism

We were warned decades ago. In 1958, in Willing Slaves of the Welfare State, C.S. Lewis wrote,

[T]he new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists’ puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man…I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in.

In the past 18 months, has there been a more dreaded “specialist in power” than Dr. Anthony Fauci? Seemingly reveling in his ability to inflict technocratic tyranny, Fauci has spent much of the past 18 months speaking outside his special subject. And during the Wuhan virus “casedemic” (it was more this than a pandemic) even when he stuck to his “special subject” (immunology and infectious diseases), Fauci has frequently been proven wrong.

On everything from masks (again and again!) to social distancing, testing, the lockdowns, the vaccinated, the asymptomatic, herd immunity, and the origins of the Wuhan virus, Fauci (along with his like-minded ilk) has regularly failed to get it right. Nevertheless, Fauci tells us that those now calling him out—with some (rightly) demanding his resignation or firing—for his repeated failures and deceit are guilty of attacking “science and the truth.”

In other words, in order to protect himself, Fauci is hiding behind “the science.” This is nothing more than another technocrat using scientism to further himself and his perverse agenda, all the while hoping to keep his hands on the levers of Big Government as long as possible. Like all of those steeped in scientism, Fauci is guilty of abusing the scientific method and scientific authority.

Fauci’s scientism has wrought near-immeasurable damage to the U.S. Hundreds of thousands of American businesses were shut down during the foolish lockdowns, with many never to reopen. As a result, millions of Americans lost their jobs. In an attempt to fix this self-inflicted problem, the U.S. government has incurred several trillion dollars more in debt on top of the numerous trillions in debt with which we were already burdened.

In addition, churches were shuttered, playgrounds were closed, sports—even outdoor sports!—were cancelled, concerts were called off, and so on. America entered an unprecedented—and tragically unnecessary—era of inactivity. Because we were repeatedly and wrongly told that a “wave” of virus cases was imminent, hospitals virtually emptied out, postponed treatments and surgeries, and told most everyone to stay away. In other words, thanks largely to Fauci’s scientism, the health care demands of the Wuhan virus were grossly overestimated and many who needed medical care could not get it.

As I noted back in August of 2020, these demands were so “grossly overestimated” that billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent—in other words, wasted—on “field hospitals” that were supposedly meant to help “handle” the virus patients as states fought to “flatten the curve.” Numerous hospitals that cost tens of millions of dollars each never treated a single patient. Others treated only a few dozen. Additionally, the hospital patient shortage was so massive that numerous U.S. hospitals suffered unprecedented, albeit self-inflicted, financial devastation.

In spite of being in less danger from the Wuhan virus than they are from the seasonal flu, millions of U.S. students have not seen the inside of their schools for almost a year-and-a-half. Most of those that were allowed to return to school have been foolishly and ignorantly required to wear a face mask. Since U.S. schools were shut down in March of 2020, week after week has provided clear data that shows that the young and healthy are in virtually no danger from the Wuhan virus. Yet the shutdowns and the masking persisted. Why?! The only answer is: scientism.

Fauci has proven himself to be the high priest of this perverse ideology. Make no mistake: much of what has been imposed in the name of the Wuhan virus—including widespread changes in election methods—was done to keep Donald Trump from winning re-election and to further empower power-hungry democrats. However, scientism was the means by which almost all of this was accomplished.

What else could explain many Americans still wearing masks outdoors and alone in their cars? What else could explain an insistence (and then quick reversal) that the vaccinated continue to wear masks and practice “social distancing?” What else could explain the eager rush to shun the idea that the Wuhan virus was manufactured and escaped from a Wuhan lab? What else could explain the rejection of proven remedies to fight diseases like the Wuhan virus?

It was never the business of men (or women) like Dr. Fauci to lead the way in deciding how any government—but especially the government of the United States of America—should govern during a health crisis. Living life on his “terms” during the Wuhan virus debacle has proved a tragic mistake. Hopefully enough Americans have learned the right lessons.

(See this column at American Thinker.) 

Copyright 2021, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

A Challenge to the Modern Church: Invest in Christian Education!

On schools, the Father of the Reformation, Martin Luther, said,

I am much afraid that the universities will prove to be the great gates of hell, unless they diligently labour in explaining the Holy Scriptures, and engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not unceasingly occupied with the Word of God must become corrupt.

Tragically, the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in America have proven this wise adage true. In the world today, there are few things more corrupt than the godless government schools that dominate the education system of the United States of America. Additionally—proving themselves “great gates of hell”—few things are more responsible for the widespread immorality, and corresponding cultural rot, that currently plagues America than are the godless government schools. This is true of k-12 schools as well as colleges and universities.

Not only do American government schools shun the Scriptures, but they directly undermine them. Everything from instruction to discipline is rooted in a godless, secular worldview. America's government schools promote or encourage a wide variety of wicked philosophies that are almost always in direct opposition to a Christian worldview. Most of such philosophies are rooted in the evil “theology of self.” The ultimate goal of the “theology of self” is to make oneself the center of all things, or put another way, to rule one’s own world. From the Fall until today, this is the age-old problem of humanity, and nothing in secular education, therapy, science, or politics is—nor are those devoted only to such—properly designed to deal with this problem.

A “theology of self” elevates humanity above God and looks to human efforts and achievements alone to solve the world's problems. Foolishly thinking that humanity alone has the solutions for all that ail us, the godless government schools have helped lead the way in turning generations of Americans away from true religion and the Truth and into scientism. Scientism is not science. It is an ideology that is often confused with science. It is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority.

In other words, scientism is a false religion with many “denominations:” Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on. Scientism arrogantly attempts to lift itself above all other beliefs and disciplines—philosophy and theology included. “Philosophy is dead,” declared Stephen Hawking in his 2010 book The Grand Design. Hawking declared it “dead” because, “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”

Thus, as we see, scientism seeks to elevate the methods of natural science to a level where it is the bar by which every other intellectual discipline is held. Scientism ridicules faith and religion and tells us that “God is dead.” Scientism tells us that the “debate is over,” so “shut up and get in line!” Scientism tells us to “put on your mask” and that you must “get the [experimental] vaccine!”

As a result of decades of indoctrination in godless philosophies, staggering numbers of American youths are abandoning Christianity and the Church. According to the American Worldview Inventory 2021—a study conducted by the Cultural Research Center of Arizona Christian University—more than any other generation of Americans, millennials (born 1985-2002) have cut ties with Christian beliefs. Tragically, 43% of millennials stated that they either don’t know, don’t care, or don’t believe that God exists.

Additionally, the study notes that “Millennials…are far more likely than any other generation to:

· Define success in life as happiness, personal freedom, or productivity without oppression  

· Consider an abortion performed to reduce personal economic or emotional discomfort to be morally acceptable

· Consider premarital sex with someone expected to be their future spouse to be morally acceptable

· Deem reincarnation a real possibility

· Be liberal regarding fiscal and social policies

· Champion liberal theology.”

The study also reports that millennials are “much less likely [their emphasis] than Americans from older generations” to:

· Embrace the Bible as their primary source of moral guidance

· Accept the notion of God being the all-knowing, all-powerful and just creator of the universe who still rules that universe today

· Consider Satan to be a real and influential being

· Participate in religious activities such as worshipping God, praying to God, studying the Bible, seeking and following God’s will, and asking for God’s forgiveness for their sins

· Identify as a Christian

· Believe that after they die they will spend eternity in God’s presence solely because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

Of course, millennials did not get to this sad point on their own. These “spiritual transitions” represent a continuation of dramatic changes introduced by Gen X prior to the arrival of the Millennials. As George Barna—Director of Research at the Cultural Research Center—points out,

[T]he reshaping of America’s religious landscape began nearly 60 years ago. Baby Boomers were the most aggressive initiators of spiritual change, embracing dramatically different beliefs and behaviors than their predecessors. Their successors, Gen X, realigned the nation’s religious boundaries even further. The youngest adult generation of today, Millennials, are now threatening to reshape the nation’s religious parameters beyond recognition.

To combat this long and tragically effective war on Christianity and the truth, U.S. churches must embrace and invest in Christian education. For far too long, far too many American Christians have surrendered their children to the godless government schools. This must change, and the church in America must act as a powerful agent for this change.

This is especially true for churches with large campuses and large budgets. These large campuses often sit mostly empty throughout the school day and could be used for classrooms, cafeterias, theaters, and the like. Gyms and athletic fields could be built; buses could be bought; and so on. It’s true that schools require large budgets, but churches—especially “mega churches” could forego campus expansion and the like and devote such resources to providing children with a sound Christian education.

Also, many U.S. churches have long been devoted to foreign missions, and rightly so. However, while seeking to spread the Word on other continents, many American churches have neglected the moral decay and the war on Christianity that’s been right under their noses for decades. Instead of trying to undo the vast damage caused by godless government schools, churches should rid themselves of the problem by getting in the education game.

Small churches that lack the budgets and other resources to provide a quality education could pool their resources and partner with other small churches, or they could partner with larger churches. Christian schools could be supported by a network of churches, both large and small, making this an affordable educational option for Christian families. This could happen in communities across the U.S.

What’s more, once this network of Christian schools spreads and becomes more popular, Christians could lobby for state laws to change so that the tax resources of Christians could be directed to the schools of their choice. Thus, not only would the godless government schools lose vast numbers of students, they would also lose the large financial resources that (are supposed to) follow these students. Almost without fail, Christian schools would prove themselves much better stewards of these resources (both financial and human).

To turn the tide of rampant immorality that currently plagues the U.S., many Americans are longing for a new spiritual “Awakening” for our nation. Educating millions of American youths from a Christian worldview would go a long way toward this end.  

(In the coming days I will publish my opinion on what should be the mission of modern Christian schools.)

(See this column at American Thinker and The Blue State Conservative.)

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
Trevor Grant Thomas
At the intersection of politics, science, faith, and reason.
www.TrevorGrantThomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America.

Democrats' Climate Agenda Will Mimic Their COVID Tyranny

If you’ve enjoyed the last 10 months of foolish, science-denying lockdowns and mask mandates, the widespread destruction of businesses and economies, the government telling you what jobs are “essential” and how you are to conduct yourself in your own home, then you must absolutely love the democrats’ climate agenda.

For decades, the climate cultists from the “New Religion of First World Elites” have attempted to use fear—the destruction of the planet—and a fake cause—saving the planet—to convince Americans to vote for democrats and enact the perverse science-denying climate agenda of the modern left. For a primer on how this would work, look no further than 2020.

As soon as the Wuhan virus entered the U.S. in early 2020, democrats across the U.S. saw it as a means to a political end. Of course, consumed with hatred and obsessed with the removal of President Trump, the 2020 Presidential Election was their primary political target. To help accomplish this, democrats in politics and the media rampantly spread Wuhan virus fear porn. Subsequently, democrat mayors and governors across the U.S—encouraged and enabled by their like-minded allies in D.C. and the media—enacted widespread and economically devastating lockdowns and accompanying measures.

In spite of the fact that most of these measures were unproven and unnecessary—time again has proven this true—the democrats persisted because “orange man bad.” They also persisted because, to paraphrase David Horowitz, inside every leftist is a totalitarian screaming to get out. Because of their lust for political power—because they have made a god of government—leftists are always looking for the next problem that their government elites (supposedly) alone can “solve.” Again, the Wuhan virus provided an excellent opportunity for this.

If you can convince people that they’re going to die if they don’t do as you say, those in power hold great sway. As C.S. Lewis cautioned lovers of liberty in the mid-twentieth century, “A hungry man thinks about food, not freedom.” Today, a corollary to this would be, “A man living in a pandemic thinks about remaining healthy and alive, not about his liberties.”

Likewise, if you think the planet is doomed if we don’t do away with fossil fuels or stop eating beef, then you are probably willing to give power to those who promise to take such things away—by force, if necessary. After all, if the planet is doomed otherwise, what force to do such things could be unjustified?

Whether a virus “emergency” or a climate “crisis,” in an attempt to justify their totalitarian agenda, leftists the world over tell us that we must heed their so-called “experts” along with their computer models. Most often, the main role for these “experts” is to give a Big Government, which is already too willing to encroach on our lives, even more of a reason for doing so. This is especially true in times of crisis, whether the crisis is real or manufactured.

Sadly, as 2020 well demonstrated, in such times many of us are far too eager to become what Lewis called in 1958 “Willing Slaves of the Welfare State.” Typically, in order for any oligarchy to rise and rule effectively, it needs some “extreme peril,” something to cure, some desperate need that the rulers promise to fulfill. As Lewis asked, is this not “the ideal opportunity for enslavement?”

When a generation lives in fear or dread of some looming crisis or when a society is made to believe that someone else can provide the things that it supposedly cannot live without, is this not the opportunity for those who seek to rule over us to be seen as liberators rather than the totalitarian tyrants that they are?

Today’s totalitarian left is devoted to scientism, and their government can well be described as a technocracy. Thus, when the American left is in power, the motto of the technocrats prevails: “only science can save us now” or “science is the way out.” Whether it is a global pandemic, global warming—excuse me, “climate change”—stem-cell research, the beginning of life, healthcare, crime, homosexuality and marriage, or even gun control, racism, or economic policies, the technocrats claim to have the answers.

Scientism almost always leads to a technocracy. “I dread government in the name of science,” said Lewis. “That is how tyrannies come in.” What a profound conclusion! How many of us have been duped in the name of “science?” How many of us cower and yield—or “shelter at home”—because, well, if the “scientists” (and then the politicians) tell us to do so, then we must do so?

Sadly, too many of us then grow accustomed to our chains. We become children, or pupils of the State (like “Julia”). We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the “Welfare State,” based significantly on the lies of scientism. Like their agenda to fight the Wuhan virus, the left’s climate agenda reeks of scientism and technocracy.

There is hardly a cause in the universe that has gotten more wrong than the climate cultists who, for decades, have proffered a wide array of climate catastrophes that require immediate, or near-immediate, actions. Time and again these doomsday scenarios have been proven wrong. These climate cultists have long relied on the deceptive use of data to push their totalitarian agenda. Daily it seems we are subjected to “another global warming fraud.” I suppose everybody needs an Apocalypse—especially totalitarians lusting for power.

Climate science has become such a joke that the “faithful” for years now have been led by a child. However, their dangerous and destructive climate policies are no joke. The left has shown us what they will do when governing in a “crisis.” However, I fear that lockdowns and mask mandates will pale in comparison to what will be called for if the American left’s climate agenda gets the force of U.S. law. We’ve seen how many businesses the left can destroy in the name of controlling a virus; imagine the destruction they can wreak if they control America’s energy policy.

(See this column at American Thinker and Climate Depot.)

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

I’m Not Wearing a Mask because I Identify as Immune

I keep waiting—and hoping for—the parking lot television or radio interview wanting to know just how I’m dealing with the dreaded Wuhan virus—though, almost certainly they won’t use such language. I have to confess that I’ve frequently been in commercial parking lots during the “shutdown” and the subsequent “re-opening” (though, I consider what’s actually occurred as FAR from a real “re-opening”) of Georgia. And each time it’s been without a mask. Oh, my eager response to the hypothetical interview will be, “I’ve been fine because I identify as immune.”

You see, I don’t need a mask because of the simple fact that I’ve decided that I’m immune to the Wuhan virus and thus not a carrier of the disease. Therefore, I’m not a danger to myself or anyone else. Thus, I can go about all of my normal activities with no mask, no social distancing, and so on.

No, I’ve not been tested for the Wuhan virus, but because of my chosen position on the spectrum of immunology, the results of a test are irrelevant. I’m immune to the Wuhan virus because I feel that way. If you disagree with my position, just who are you to tell me that this is wrong?! After all, if biology doesn’t determine sex, then immunology doesn’t determine infection or contagion.

In other words, just as liberalism has decided that there is a “spectrum” when it comes to sex—or gender, if you prefer—then there must be a similar “spectrum” when it comes to diseases and infection. And if boys are merely allowed to identify as girls—and take trophies, scholarships, etc. from real girls—and if men are allowed to identify as women—and ascend to the level of Secretary of Health of an American state—then why can’t I identify as immune to the Wuhan virus and merely go about my business as normal?

I mean, if the person “leading the fight against COVID-19 in Pennsylvania” rejects the biology that a three year-old can comprehend, why in the world would anyone on the left object to my views on the Wuhan virus, the wearing of masks, social distancing, and the like? In other words, if someone is willing to ignore the real science of biology and sex, why not be willing to ignore the fake—or at least very suspect—science of those promoting the shutdown narrative?

Speaking of science, when it comes to face coverings, the CDC says “Cloth face coverings may slow the spread of the virus (emphasis mine).” Thus, the CDC is not even sure masks work to prevent spreading the virus. Even if they do work, where have all the masks been during flu season? After all, the CDC also recently noted that the mortality ratio of the Wuhan virus pandemic (0.27%) is very similar to the 1957-58 flu pandemic (0.26%).

During the 1957-58 flu pandemic, because there was no widespread lockdown of the U.S., there was no significant impact on the U.S. economy. Also, there was no widespread closure of schools and churches; no nation-wide ban on other large gatherings; and no extensive use of masks, social distancing, or quarantines.

What’s more, a Wuhan virus fatality rate of 0.27% (or 0.26% if you go with this calculation) is over 12 times less than the World Health Organization’s early March estimate of 3.4% and more than seven times lower than Dr. Fauci’s estimate (2%) from late March. Again, according to the CDC, for those under 50 years of age, the Wuhan virus fatality rate is only 0.05%, and it gets lower for younger people.

In my state of Georgia, there’s been only one recorded death from the Wuhan virus of a person younger than 22 years old. In that case, the individual is listed as having a “chronic condition.” Additionally, as Hans Bader recently reported,

No child has been found to have passed coronavirus to an adult, a review of the evidence in partnership with the Royal College of Pediatrics has found.

Major studies into the impact of COVID-19 on young children suggest they “do not play a significant role” in spreading the virus and are less likely to become infected than adults

While experts insist that more evidence is needed, they note there has not been a single case of a child under 10 transmitting the virus, even in contact tracing carried out by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Furthermore, The Spectator (UK) recently noted that, in Iceland, an analysis of Wuhan virus tests on 36,500 people by “a company called deCODE Genetics, in association with the country’s directorate of health and the national university hospital,” was performed. The analysis revealed that, “The tests identified 1801 cases of people suffering from the disease – and ten deaths. Each case was carefully tracked. In not a single case could the researchers find evidence of a child passing on the disease to their parents.”

In the U.S. from birth to age 24, there have been a total of 88 deaths from the Wuhan virus. Of these 88, there were 12 deaths that were under the age of 15. This flu season, the U.S. has seen 176 pediatric deaths alone. In the 2018-2019 flu season there were 144 pediatric deaths. In the 2017-2018 flu season there were 188 pediatric flu deaths. So, when it comes to mortality, the data reveal that children are in far more danger from influenza than from the Wuhan virus.

So, children are in relatively little danger from the Wuhan virus, and they are not passing the virus on to adults. Remind me again why the schools are shut down? Maybe it’s because schools are choosing to identify as Blockbuster Video stores.

Like the foolish and destructive notion that a man can simply decide that he is a woman (or vice versa), and all must accept and acquiesce to such evil, across the U.S., democrats—and like-minded never-Trumpers—continue to heap destruction upon the American economy by insisting that all Americans be subjected to a national shutdown. Many state and city leaders are foolishly saying that they will not fully reopen until there’s a vaccine. Leftist pundits ignorantly insist that “none of us are safe until all of us are safe.” Some (the Chinese?) are saying that “social distancing” in the U.S. must continue for years more.

Such thinking is not data driven, and it is not rooted in science, but scientism. Even more than the Wuhan virus, the shutdown is destroying lives and livelihoods. Perhaps the quickest way for this shutdown garbage to end is for fewer Americans to identify as democrats.

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Wuhan Virus Reminds Us: Beware Scientism and the Technocrats

It was not unusual in ancient times for individuals to sell themselves into servitude—as “bondservants”—which was often described as a form of slavery. Usually this was due to excessive debt, but sometimes it was done simply to have a roof over one’s head and food in one’s belly. In other words, for millennia, in order to satisfy their most basic needs, human beings have often been willing to suffer under many a heavy yoke. As C.S. Lewis put it, “A hungry man thinks about food, not freedom.”

In today’s Wuhan virus-driven hysteria, a corollary to Lewis’s above quote would be, “One living in a pandemic thinks about remaining healthy, not about freedom.” Writing about the “great issues” of his day, Lewis wrote in 1940, “Lord! How I loathe great issues…Could one start a Stagnation Party— which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place?”

Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, John G. West, writes that, “According to stepson David Gresham, Lewis was skeptical of politicians and not really interested in current events. His concern was not policy but principle; political problems of the day were interesting to him only insofar as they involved matters that endured.”

Nevertheless, West adds that Lewis did indeed have a “great deal” to say about politics, writing about such things as crime, obscenity, capital punishment, communism, fascism, socialism, war, the welfare state, and so on. Lewis’s political efforts resulted in “enduring political standards for all time.”

Nowhere is this clearer, West states, than in Lewis’s writings on tyranny and morality. According to West, Lewis was particularly concerned with the tyranny that could result from the union of modern science and the modern state. With the Wuhan virus pandemic, we are currently living a lesson in this.

Lewis disputed the notion that we must exclusively rely on the counsel of scientists because only they have the answers to today’s complicated problems. He did not dispute their knowledge, but he concluded that most of it was irrelevant. In West’s words, “Political problems are preeminently moral problems, and scientists are not equipped to function as moralists.” Lewis added that,

I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value.

What such “specialists in power” often do is give a Big Government, which is already too willing to encroach on our lives, even more of a reason for doing so. This is especially true in times of crisis. Few things illustrate this better than our current “crisis” that is the Wuhan virus pandemic. “What things are worth having at what price” is currently a question of great concern to Americans and all freedom-loving people the world over, and such a question should never be answered by relying only on the knowledge of scientists. Sadly, in such times many of us are far too eager to become what Lewis called in 1958 “Willing Slaves of the Welfare State.”

Typically, in order for any oligarchy effectively to rise and rule, it needs some “extreme peril,” something to cure, some desperate need that the rulers promise to fulfill. As Lewis asked, is this not “the ideal opportunity for enslavement?”

When a generation lives in fear or dread of some looming crisis or when a society is made to believe that someone else can provide the things that it cannot live without, is this not the opportunity for those who seek to rule over us to be seen as liberators rather than the tyrants that they are? Were not Stalin and Hitler first seen as saviors and deliverers?

Following two world wars and in the midst of a cold war, Lewis wrote that

The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to choice or chance…Read Montaigne; that’s the voice of a man with his legs under his own table, eating mutton and turnips raised on his own land. Who will talk like that when the State is everyone’s schoolmaster and employer?

To “fix” our problems (whether real or perceived) and to exert the power and influence necessary, today’s ruling class often tells us that we must more and more rely on the “experts,” and also on their computer models. This means that the politicians must increasingly rely on the knowledge and advice of scientists, until, in the end, the politicians become “merely the scientists’ puppets.”

Thus, we get the motto of the technocrats: “only science can save us now” or “science is the way out” of our Wuhan virus crisis. Whether it is a global pandemic, global warming, stem-cell research, the beginning of life, healthcare, crime, homosexuality and marriage, or even gun control or economic policies, the technocrats claim to have the answers. After all, as Lewis also noted, “If we are to be mothered, mother must know best.”

In other words, in times of crisis, many of our politicians (and scientists alike) are surrendering themselves to scientism. Scientism is not science. It is an ideology that is often confused with science. It is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority.

In other words, scientism is a religion with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on. How many Americans now find their fulfillment and purpose in these movements? They celebrate Earth Day and Darwin Day. They boldly assert, “Science is my Savior.”

Also, scientism arrogantly attempts to lift itself above all other beliefs and disciplines—philosophy and theology included. Thus, as we see, scientism seeks to elevate the methods of natural science to a level where it is the bar by which every other intellectual discipline is held. Scientism ridicules faith and religion and tells us that “God is dead.” Scientism tells us that the “debate is over,” so shut up and get in line.

And, of course, scientism leads us to technocracy. “I dread government in the name of science,” said Lewis. “That is how tyrannies come in.” What a profound conclusion! How many of us have been duped in the name of “science”? How many of us cower and yield—or “shelter at home”—because, well, if the “scientists” (and then the politicians) tell us to do so, then we must do so?

We have long seen the results: generations are taught that life began without God; that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth; that homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable; that abortion is not really the taking of a life; that marriage is whatever we want it to be; that confiscating the wealth of some to give to others is “fair;” that guns are evil; and so on. Of course, we then get laws and official government policy based on such conclusions.

Sadly, too many of us then grow accustomed to our chains. We become children, or pupils of the State (like “Julia”). We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the “Welfare State,” based significantly on the lies of scientism. It’s time for Americans to wake up to this perversion of science and return science, faith, philosophy, and by all means, common sense, to their proper place. This is especially true in times of crisis.

(See this column at American Thinker and at Climate Depot.)

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

How do Liberals Flunk Science? Let Us Count the Ways.

With most of the U.S. currently in the grip of significant cold, and given the proper goading from President Trump, liberals again felt led to lecture us on the difference between weather and climate. Of course, it’s lost on most leftists how they so often fail to apply the same standards to themselves. Whether blizzards, hurricanes, wild fires, tornadoes, record heat, record cold, and so on, with religious-like devotion, liberals almost never fail to link dramatic weather events to their apocalyptic climate narrative.

One of the easiest jobs in the world has to be that of climate doomsayer. No matter the weather, the climate kooks can scream “man-made global warming!” and the faithful will follow with a hearty, “AMEN!” In spite of the folly and the pseudo science behind the man-made global warming movement, time and again the modern left insists that it is conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—who have abandoned science and reason.

Last year, The New York Times went as far as to blame evangelicals for our “post-truth society.” The New York Times lamenting a “post-truth society” is like Satan complaining about sin. In other words, few organizations or individuals in the history of humanity have waged a more enthusiastic war on the truth than has “the newspaper of record.”

Because all sound science—yes, there are plenty of scientific charlatans—always points one to the truth, it is little surprise that those so often opposed to the truth frequently find themselves at odds with what sound science reveals. For those unsure of where they stand on the spectrum of understanding what real science and scientists have revealed, let me take a moment to chronicle some actual “settled science.”

First of all—back when Adam took his first homeschool anatomy course—science long ago revealed there are only two sexes—male and female. There is no such thing as a “gender spectrum.” Any sentient adult telling you that such nonsense exists should have his or her grown-up card revoked and be required to repeat kindergarten at an approved location. What’s more, contrary to LGBT propaganda, basic biology is not “transphobic.”

Unlike the modern left’s practice of using a fake problem—man-made climate change—to explain real weather-related catastrophes, tolerating the very real transgender madness of the modern left has led to all sorts of very real human-related catastrophes. Men using women’s restrooms and locker rooms, men competing against (and taking trophies from) women, women occupying the front lines of our military, and so on, are all the direct result of the fake science preached and produced by liberalism.

Just as settled as is the science of who is a male and who is a female is the science of life in the womb. Life in the womb for a child is as well documented as anything in science. With ultrasound and Doppler machines, as well as other technology, one can monitor the life of a baby in the womb from very near the beginning until birth.

Moments after conception (hardly a serious biologist in the world would argue that life does not begin at conception), the resulting single cell contains all 46 chromosomes necessary to grow into an adult human being. Within 48 hours of conception, the mother’s body starts producing a hormone to let her know that she is pregnant. In the beginning of the third week, the baby’s heart begins to beat with a blood type that is often different from its mother’s.

During week five, eyes, legs, and hands have begun to develop. By week six, brain waves are detectable. Week eight has every organ in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and the baby can begin to hear. By week 12, the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester. She has all the necessary parts to experience pain, including her nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. She can grasp objects placed in her hand and has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, and circulation.

By week 15, she has an adult’s taste buds. Week 20, the earliest stage at which liberals used to conduct partial-birth abortions, the child can recognize her mother’s voice. She is within one or two weeks of the stage where babies can routinely be saved outside the womb. In spite of all of this, to justify the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn children, abortion apologists have regularly ignored the indisputable science of life in the womb.

Recently, liberals have gone so far as to launch a massive billboard campaign that refers to abortion as “sacred,” “a blessing,” and even “life-saving.” Abortion is so far from the concept of “life-saving” that it’s not too difficult—especially among the government educated—to find individuals who advocate infanticide. We shouldn’t be surprised by this when the last U.S. President—elected twice—basically advocated the same.

And why the devotion to killing the most innocent and defenseless among us? The will to do whatever one wants sexually without the consequences is a powerful force, and those corrupted by liberalism will go to almost any length—including fake science—in order to keep abortion popular and legal.

Speaking of a liberal’s libido, real science does no favors for the homosexual agenda either. As Obama's Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett learned in 2010, even well-established liberals can draw the ire of the homosexual community by simply implying that homosexuality is not innate (meaning genetic), but is rather a “lifestyle choice.” (Of course, Jarrett quickly back-tracked and apologized.) We’ve been told for decades now that homosexuality is a genetic and unchangeable behavior—that people are “born gay.”

In 1993, when the journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer (et al) which strongly suggested there was a gene for homosexuality, an eager and complicit media celebrated. National Public Radio trumpeted the findings. Newsweek’s cover asked, “Gay Gene?” The Wall Street Journal announced, “Research Points Toward a Gay Gene…” The New York Times noted, “Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes.”

However, noted psychiatrist, physicist, and author (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth) Jeffrey Satinover concluded that “the Hamer study is seriously flawed.” Many genetic researchers also quickly took issue with Hamer’s study. However, the myth grew. Today, it is commonplace for liberals in the media, Hollywood, and like-minded politicians again to ignore the real science and continue to perpetuate the falsehood that homosexuality is strictly genetic.

Dr. Satinover notes that, “The notion that ‘homosexuals’ are in effect a ‘different species’ (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.” What science does reveal is that homosexuality is a rather unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle.

And much to the dismay of many on the modern left, homosexual sex doesn’t produce babies—because, you know, science. Thus, we now have fools declaring same-sex couples “infertile” and demanding that health insurance companies foot the bill to remedy this. So along with paying for abortions and “gender reassignment” surgery, liberals want us to foot the bill so that two men can have a baby.

As they foolishly declare their “belief in science,” liberals such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren remind us that what liberals are devoted to is not science but scientism. And because of this, their policies will always, ultimately, fail.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Liberals, Scientism, and the Politics of Pleasure

Behold the anthem of modern liberalism (Though you’ve probably already seen it, WARNING: vulgar and insanely stupid. After viewing, you’ll probably want to shower, pray, and spend some time with a Rubik’s Cube.):

So I now know who Rachel Bloom is. Tragically, I can’t imagine a worse introduction. As a result of this sorry, sad, sick episode (everyone involved in this video should be forced to turn in any degrees or diplomas they possess), Nye, Bloom, et al have all been thoroughly—and deservedly—ridiculed. That’s what happens when one surrenders three whole minutes of a television program—that is supposedly devoted to “exploring scientific issues”—to a segment that appears to have been written, produced, and choreographed by delinquent 12 year-olds. (Please tell me they are the only ones who will do that.)

Nevertheless, no one who pays much attention to the words and works of liberalism should be too surprised by this. Though, admittedly, I think most of today’s liberals wouldn’t allow themselves participation in such blatant, cartoonish, stupidity. (If this is not the case, the country’s in even worse shape than I imagined.) I suppose Nye and Bloom’s efforts are just further evidence that we are indeed a culture nearly bereft of shame.

Equally shameful were the recent actions of a Philadelphia public high school assistant principal. After encountering a couple of pro-life teenagers on a public sidewalk outside the school where he works, Zach Ruff—dean of academics and student life at STEM Academy in Downingtown, PA—became unhinged. Ruff did not like his students being presented with a biblical, pro-life message. Upon seeing posters of aborted children, Ruff told the young pro-life messengers—16-year-old Conner Haines and his 19-year-old sister Lauren—“They’re not children, they’re cells! ...You’re at a science-based school, those are cells!”

When Conner Haines mentioned Jesus, repentance, and the forgiveness of sin, Ruff called the Bible a “book of fiction” and yelled, “Public school, we don’t believe in that here!” Ruff added, “I’m as gay as the day is long and twice as sunny. I don’t give a f*** what you think Jesus tells me and what I should and should not be doing.” Ruff went so far as to wag his finger in Conner’s face and said, “Shut your mouth and don’t talk to my students. You do not have permission to speak and engage.”

Wow. How “tolerant.”

Imagine that. Another liberal screaming at conservatives to shut-up. I wonder if Ruff ever attended UC Berkeley. Do you think he believes Rachel Bloom and Bill Nye have “permission” to spew their filth? And take note of his profound grasp of “science.” According to the latest spokesman for “the party of science,” this is not a child.

Nearly as stupid as Nye’s video—but perhaps more shocking considering the source—is a new Harvard University “factsheet” on gender dysphoria that is urging students to “fight transphobia.” The propaganda piece declares “Get the facts about gender diversity.” Some of the “facts” it presents:

[G]ender expression, identity, and self-understanding can change from day to day… gender can be expressed through any, all, and/or none of the following ways: speech, mannerisms, clothing, reflecting on one's gender identity, sharing one's gender identity with family, friends, and/or co-workers, make-up, grooming, name and/or sex on legal documents, hormone therapy, and surgery…there are more than two sexes.

The piece concludes by implying that failure to comply and call people by their preferred name or pronoun is a “form of systemic violence.” How ironic. Campus liberals complaining about violence.

Notice again how the issues surrounding sex and sexuality lead liberals to absurd behaviors. Because of the ongoing debates over the moral issues in our culture, liberals often like to paint conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—as prudes obsessed with sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither Christians nor conservatives (of course, not mutually exclusive) picked the fights over abortion, homosexuality, marriage, gender, and so on. Not so long ago, for the most part, our culture and our laws reflected sound moral thinking on such issues. It was only after loud, vocal, and well-funded liberals decided that we must abandon the Judeo-Christian ethic on such matters and fight for the “right” (as Bloom sang: Sex how you want it, it’s your g-dd-mn right!) to do whatever one wishes in the sexual realm that we have found our country mired in debating what was once clearly understood: it’s wrong to kill a child in the womb, the only rightful place for sex is within marriage, marriage is the union of one man and one woman, one’s gender is biological and fixed, and so on.

For decades now, liberals have focused much of their perverse political efforts on these matters, and when possible—with real science, it’s getting harder to deny the reality of things such as life in the womb—cloaked such politics with so-called “science.” As I noted (more than once) several years ago, Nye and those like-minded aren’t devoted to science, they are adherents of “scientism.” As I said in 2013, scientism is not science, it is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority. Scientism is best described as a false religion, with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on.

For far too many liberals, science isn’t an end unto itself. In other words, too often liberals aren’t looking for answers, they’re looking for an excuse or an opportunity to further the perverse (or big government) liberal agenda. Thus, “science” becomes merely a means to a political end.

For this reason, C.S. Lewis warned, “I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent.” Much of the “science” championed by the modern left drips with pretentions. And whether the global warming agenda, the LGBT agenda, the abortion agenda, the education agenda, the socialist agenda, and so on, tyranny looms behind virtually every political effort of today’s left that purports to be supported by “science.”

Exhibits A, B, and C of this tyranny are the litigious homosexual community vengefully suing Christians who don’t want to participate in a perverse redefinition of marriage, riotous campus liberals attempting to shut down speech with which they disagree, and “the debate is over” liberals who want to silence dissent on the “settled science” of man-made global warming.

Of course, the political champion of scientism is the political arm of modern liberalism: the Democrat Party. Sadly, tens of millions of Americans have been duped into voting for democrats for two reasons in particular: the promise of “free stuff” (as Rush Limbaugh puts it, it’s hard to compete with Santa Claus), and the lure of having legal protection for most anything they can imagine to do sexually.

In other words, today’s Democrats, for the most part, are peddling pleasure. Aided by like-minded fools in the media and the courts, their job is made even easier. Conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—must not be deterred. Given the foolish fantasies sold by lying leftists, this fight is not easy. Whether faced with threats, violence, protests, fines, jail, and so on, we must persevere and remain powerful voices for truth in these grave matters.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Beware of Scientism and the Technocrats

At the beginning of the movie “Van Helsing,” Dracula, sounding much like a faithful member of today’s left, joyfully exclaims to Dr. Frankenstein that his monster, just brought to life, is a “victory of science over God.” Writing in the UK’s Guardian, Julian Baggini declared that any religion “that seeks to explain the hows of the universe…is competing with science. In such contests science always wins, hands down, and the only way out is to claim a priority for faith over evidence, or the Bible over the lab.”

Scientist and former White House senior policy advisor Jeff Schweitzer recently declared that “Religion and science are incompatible at every level. The two seek different answers to separate questions using fundamentally and inherently incompatible methods. Nothing can truly bring the two together without sacrificing intellectual honesty.”

Renowned Darwinist Jerry Coyne, who also believes that religion and science are fundamentally incompatible, recently made the asinine and ignorant conclusion that “all the achievements of both ancient and modern science have been made by explicitly rejecting the theistic view that God has a hand in the universe, and that religion, if it ever did inspire scientific research, doesn’t do so any longer.”

The word “science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” meaning “knowledge.” All knowledge is derived from certain governing presuppositions. In other words, each side of every issue that human beings debate ultimately has certain un-provable assumptions upon which they must eventually rely. As the late philosopher, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, put it, “At the most fundamental level of everyone's thinking and beliefs there are primary convictions about reality, man, the world, knowledge, truth, behavior, and such things. Convictions about which all other experience is organized, interpreted, and applied.”

Likewise, theologian, author, and pastor, R.C. Sproul, recently discussed the “lasting impression” that the book, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, which he read over 50 years ago, had made upon him. He noted that the book was so influential to him because it “clearly set forth the importance of understanding that all scientific theories presuppose certain philosophical premises.”

The concept of “primary convictions” or presupposed “philosophical premises” is important when it comes to the nonsense that is religion vs. science. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive arenas where we must leave one completely behind as we cross over into the other.

Anyone can practice good science while operating from a biblical worldview (such as Pasteur, Pascal, Newton, Kepler, et al). If this is not the case, then how did Newton, considered by many the greatest scientist of all time, ever invent calculus and develop his laws of motion and universal gravitation while operating from a strict biblical worldview? Newton also calculated the age of the earth to be only a few thousand years old and declared, “For an educated man…any suggestion that the human past extended back further than 6,000 years was a vain and foolish speculation.”

If science and religion are “fundamentally incompatible,” how did Pasteur, the father of modern medicine and a firm believer in God and His Word, ever discover the principles of vaccination, fermentation, and pasteurization? If, as Coyne declares, Darwinian evolution is “biology’s greatest theory,” then why did Pasteur directly oppose Darwin and his theory, all the while conducting experiments to enhance the Law of Biogenesis?

Just as there were centuries ago, today there are scientists with a biblical worldview in every field of science. They go to school, study, graduate; they go to church, worship, pray, read (and believe) Scripture; and they go to work, conduct research, develop products, heal the sick; all the while operating completely unfettered (except by the opposition they endure from the enemies of faith) in their fields.

Likewise, some things involving matters of faith can be tested (observed, measured, and repeated). There is bountiful evidence (the field of archaeology has been a great friend to Christianity) for everything I believe about God and His creation. In other words, there is no battle between science and religion. The only competition that exists when it comes to our pursuit of knowledge and truth lies in our worldviews, or one might say, our presupposed “philosophical premises.”

Nevertheless, the idea that there is some battle between science and religion—especially Christianity—simply won’t go away. According to today's left, politicians, judges, military officers, policemen, teachers, and so forth are never to be guided by religion, but always by “science.” Thus, with their common liberal worldview (that is extremely hostile to religion—especially Christianity), we now have a disastrous marriage between the liberals who dominate “modern science” and those who dominate Big Government.

I wonder if “geniuses” such as Baggini, Schweitzer, and Coyne applied their massive intellectual powers to the merits of the disaster that is now Obamacare, or to the debate over when human life begins, or to the many dangers of homosexual behavior, or to the myth of anthropogenic global warming. Wouldn’t you want to wager that, in spite of what many see as clear moral and scientific evidence to the contrary, such “scientists” abandon almost all reason and tow the liberal line when it comes to issues such as health-care, abortion, homosexuality, marriage, guns, and “climate change”?

Writing about the “great issues” of his day, C.S. Lewis wrote in 1940, “Lord! How I loathe great issues…Could one start a Stagnation Party— which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place?” Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, John G. West writes that “According to stepson David Gresham, Lewis was skeptical of politicians and not really interested in current events. His concern was not policy but principle; political problems of the day were interesting to him only insofar as they involved matters that endured.”

Nevertheless, West adds that Lewis did indeed have a “great deal” to say about politics, writing about such things as crime, obscenity, capital punishment, communism, fascism, socialism, war, the welfare state, and so on. West noted that, “It is precisely because Lewis was so uninterested in ordinary political affairs that he has so much to tell us about politics in the broad sense of the term. By avoiding the partisan strife of his own time, he was able to articulate enduring political standards for all time.”

Nowhere is this clearer, West states, than in Lewis’ writings on tyranny and morality. According to West, Lewis was particularly concerned with the tyranny that could result from the union of modern science and the modern state.

Lewis disputed the notion that we must rely on the counsel of scientists because only they have the answers to today's complicated problems. He did not dispute their knowledge, but concluded that most of it was irrelevant. In West’s words, “Political problems are preeminently moral problems, and scientists are not equipped to function as moralists.” Lewis added that, “I dread specialists in power [such as our now numerous political “czars”] because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value.”

What such “specialists in power” do is give a Big Government, which is already too willing to encroach on our lives, even more of a reason for doing so. This is especially true in times of crisis. (“Never let a crisis go to waste,” right?) In such times many of us are far too eager to become what Lewis called in 1958 “Willing Slaves of the Welfare State.”

Typically, in order for any oligarchy effectively to rise and rule, it needs some “extreme peril,” something to cure, some desperate need that the rulers promise to fulfill. As Lewis asked, is this not “the ideal opportunity for enslavement?”

When a generation lives in fear or dread of some looming crisis or when a society is made to believe that someone else can provide the things that it cannot live without, is this not the opportunity for those who seek to rule over us to be seen as liberators rather than the tyrants that they are? Were not Stalin and Hitler first seen as saviors and deliverers? 

Following two world wars and in the midst of a cold war, Lewis wrote that “The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to choice or chance…The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good…Read Montaigne; that’s the voice of a man with his legs under his own table, eating mutton and turnips raised on his own land. Who will talk like that when the State is everyone’s schoolmaster and employer?”

To “fix” our problems (whether real or perceived) and to exert the power and influence necessary, the new ruling class must more and more rely on the “experts.” This means that the politicians must increasingly rely on the knowledge and advice of scientists, until, in the end, the politicians become “merely the scientists’ puppets.”

Thus, we get the motto of the technocrats: “only science can save us now.” Whether it is global warming, stem-cell research, the beginning of life, healthcare, crime, homosexuality and marriage, or even gun control or economic policies, the technocrats have the answers. After all, as Lewis also noted, “If we are to be mothered, mother must know best.”

In other words, many of our politicians (and scientists alike) are surrendering themselves to scientism. Scientism is not science. It is an ideology that is often confused with science. It is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority.

Scientism can also be classified as a religion. It is a religion with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on. How many Americans now find their fulfillment and purpose in these movements? They celebrate Earth Day and Darwin Day. They boldly assert, “Science is my Savior.”

Also, scientism arrogantly attempts to lift itself above all other beliefs and disciplines—philosophy and theology included. “Philosophy is dead,” declared Stephen Hawking in his 2010 book The Grand Design. It is dead because, “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”

Thus, as we see, scientism seeks to elevate the methods of natural science to a level where it is the bar by which every other intellectual discipline is held. Scientism ridicules faith and religion and tells us that “God is dead.” Scientism tells us that the “debate is over,” so shut up and get in line.

And, of course, scientism leads us to technocracy. “I dread government in the name of science,” said Lewis. “That is how tyrannies come in.” What a profound conclusion! How many of us have been duped in the name of “science”? How many of us cower and yield, because, well, if the “scientists” (and then the politicians) tell us so, then it must be so?

We can see the results: generations are taught that life began without God; that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth; that homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable; that abortion is not really the taking of a life; that marriage is whatever we want it to be; that confiscating the wealth of some to give to others is “fair;” that guns are evil; and so on. Of course, we then get laws and official government policy based on such conclusions.

Sadly, too many of us then grow accustomed to our chains. We become children, or pupils of the State (like “Julia”). We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the “Welfare State” based significantly on the lies of scientism. It’s time for Americans to wake up to this perversion of science and return science, faith, philosophy, and by all means, common sense, to their proper place.

(A version of this appeared in American Thinker in 2012.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com