The Fawning Science Media and the Darwin Sausage Works

It is common knowledge that the secular news media are, for the most part, heavily biased toward the political left. This obviously influences their reporting — which seems more like propaganda than actual journalism. After all, journalists are expected to investigate and ask hard questions.

There are a few reporters who want to do their jobs. Unfortunately, they are obscured by the lapdog majority. In the secular science industry, leftist causes and Darwinism are paramount as well as symbiotic. The public wants answers and is getting annoyed with the science press.

Sausages by Amanda Lim at Unsplash (modified, obviously)

In an article on an Intelligent Design site titled "Why Are Science Reporters So Credulous?", David Klinghoffer points out that secular science journalists are assembling press releases instead of doing genuine reporting. He quotes Nicholas Wade, who indicates that journalists put scientists on pedestals which hinders doubt or healthy skepticism. The secular press protects the interests of their sources.

In a related article by Denyse O'Leary, a blunt article appears: "Why Science News Sucks — A Response to a Disgusted Physicist." Yes, even a few scientists are concerned. Some of the article also  discusses obediently promoting the interests of secularists. Also, people want certainty so they can understand what is happening in the world. The news media are not working to uncover the truth.

Also useful to secularists is an appeal to authority. Just because "scientists say" does not mean something is true. As discussed before, many pronouncements from the secular science industry (especially involving Darwinism) are passed along without question. Worse, those scientists own a passel of hubris and, in too many cases, are lacking in humility. Some things are declared without doubt (O'Leary's article mentions the now-debunked Population Bomb of fifty years ago that had people alarmed), and often times, there is no hint of "we might be wrong."

My prospector friend Stormy Waters is getting engaged, and she was in town with her friend Ruby Slippers, considering dresses for Stormy's upcoming nuptials. They started to head home, but the fragrance from the nearby park attracted them. What to their wondering eyes should appear was grilling by Lotta Lyez, a kitchen maid at the Darwin Ranch.

I'm told they're mighty tasty, but having the Bearded Buddha's face on them is off-putting. They should not be consumed by the uninformed. Sausages have been around for thousands of years and were probably invented to preserve scraps and use parts that people don't want to know they're eating. Same thing nowadays, plus processing, flavors, and all that. Darwin sausage is a slurry of facts, bad science, deceptions, and all that bad stuff.

Darwin sausage is a variation on evoporn: It is pleasing and appears to satisfy a desire for knowledge,  but is is not useful as true science. Like in mainstream journalism, some folks in the secular science industry are none too pleased with the state of news media. Occasionally, a few will ask hard questions. The ingredients of evolution dating back to the time of Darwin are distasteful at best. Some are saying that all this emphasis on evolution is silly because using evolution in biology is unnecessary! Unfortunately, they are locked into atheistic naturalism and will not give credit to the Creator for all he has given.

An old proverb says, “Those who like sausage should not watch it being made.” Does that fit the manufacture of evolutionary theory? In a revealing article discussed below, a pro-evolution science reporter retraces the convoluted history of Darwinism from 1859 to the present. It’s not a pretty picture. The product comes out packaged neat and clean in textbooks, stamped with the Big Science seal of approval, but the contents are filthy and toxic. Consumer caution is advised.

To chow down on the rest, see "Darwin Sausage Factory Exposed." 'Scuse me while I see if there are any leftover hot dogs in the 'fridge.