Recently I read someone's comment online that was something along the lines of: "Biological science is now coming to the understanding that biological sex is not binary and that it's a spectrum."
I wanted to reply with something like: Oh really? Has there been some new discoveries during the last ten or so years about human biology, human genetics, human physiology, that has revolutionized centuries of biological science? Did science in the last decade or so examine and measure human biology better than ever, with more accurate machines, and discover things that we hadn't discovered before? Things we hadn't seen before, and didn't realize were there? Did science find new things about the human body and human biology that were previously unknown? New functions? New chromosomes? New alleles? New organs?
Or is it more likely that nothing particularly new has been discovered about the human body, and instead science has been more and more invaded, over the last couple of decades, by political activists who have been brainwashed and trained in universities?
I would posit that what these "scientists" are doing with the science is essentially the same thing as young Earth creationists are doing with science: Rather than observe and measure the evidence, and drawing neutral logical conclusions from it, they are doing it the other way around: The conclusion has already been decided, and now they are trying to manipulate the evidence to try to fit that conclusion.
That's not science. That's pseudoscience. That's what creationists do. That's what conspiracy theorists do. That's what radical political activists do. It's reversing the scientific method, going back to the eras prior to the Age of Enlightenment, where "science" was merely the study of what was already "known" and established about the world, the universe, and everything.
(One of the great scientific revolutions that happened during the so-called Age of Enlightenment is that science was separated from religion and philosophy, and was changed to be evidence-based. Prejudice and pre-established conclusions were discarded, and conclusions started being logically drawn from observed evidence, whatever those conclusions might end up being. Conclusions are based on evidence, not the other way around.)
This is nothing new. Back in the 1980's and especially 1990's there was another form of trying-to-interpret-evidence-to-fit-a-foregone-conclusion among the far-leftist multiculturalists: That of trying to argue that, scientifically, "races" do not exist. The arguments were surprisingly similar back then, with the subject just being biological race rather than biological sex.
(Oh, how have times changed. Back then they strongly maintained that if you even talked about there being different races, if you even posited the existence of races, you were a racist. Just talking about "race" made you a racist. Only racists think that races exist (when in reality they obviously don't! It's scientifically proven!) Nowadays the far left can't talk about anything else than race. Back in the 1990's and early 2000's they would have been deemed racists, by the far-left logic of that time.)
Comments
Post a Comment