President Obama has repeatedly talked about restoring science to its rightful place. This is one of those warm fuzzy statements that politicians love to make. Who is going to disagree? Doesn’t everyone want science to be in its rightful place? So is there anything really significant about Obama’s repeated commitment to restore science to its rightful place? You haven’t heard him talk about it lately, but be forewarned that you will be hearing it again, especially if the United States should be so unfortunate as to see him reelected. I’m convinced that like so much of what Obama says, this is coded language. When he says we need to invest in America’s future, what he really means is, “I want to raise your taxes.” When we went to war in Libya, he told us that it wasn’t a war, it was a “kinetic military action”. Or maybe you remember when acts of terrorism were labeled “man-caused disasters”, and the war on terror became an “overseas contingency operation”. So what does Obama mean when he says that he wants to “restore science to its rightful place”?
This is part of the messianic mystique that developed around Obama in the 2008 campaign. Did you notice that his goal is not to KEEP science in its rightful place. No, he wants to RESTORE science to its rightful place. This implies that someone or something has removed science from its rightful place, with the result that it needs to be restored. Restoration is part of the messianic ministry. This raises the question: Who removed science from its rightful place? So far, Obama hasn’t said, but I feel fairly certain that it must have been those nasty, bitter-clinger, right-wing extremist, tea-bagging Republicans.
The other obvious question raised by Candidate and President Obama’s statements is: What is the rightful place of Science? I will give my response to that question in a future post, but today we are interested in how Obama would answer that question. . . if he didn’t know there was a live microphone in the room. The fact that Obama has an idea of what constitutes the rightful place of science is clear from his own comments. Otherwise, he would be unaware that science was not already in its rightful place, nor would he be able to identify when he has completed his self-imposed task of restoring science to his vision of its rightful place.
So then, what is Obama’s vision of the rightful place of science? A study of his references to science up to this point in his term will reveal that in Obama’s brave new world, the rightful place of science is as an infallible, unquestionable, the debate is over, no dissenters allowed religion that supports his political agenda. Whether it’s embryonic stem cell research, cap and trade, the “green” energy initiative, or
medical death panels the Independent Payment Advisory Board, infallible scientific consensus is pulled like a rabbit out of a hat to justify why we must implement Obama’ policies. Dissenters are obviously anti-science, flat-earthers, and any so-called scientist who refuses to join the consensus, well, they probably believe in intelligent design too, you know what I mean? Be prepared for an increase in intellectual blackmail coming from Obama and the Progressive movement.
Should science be in its rightful place? Of course it should. But Obama’s vision of the rightful place of science is one that is not shared by conservatives. And scientists, who don’t want to see science transformed into a politicized, dogmatic religion, should be the first to take a stand against it.