The liberalist tool of political correctness has a way of skewing science while mocking Christians as ignorant anti-science fools. For liberalists, where science stands in the way of politics, lying is institutionalized virtue. Any rational expression or scientific fact that affronts someone’s ‘feelings’ is termed hate speech. No one really believes that women and men generally have the same aptitudes and predispositions (there are some 2500 differences between men and women). But somehow proclaiming what we know to be false scientifically is supposed to lead to a more equal society. While illegal immigrants cost the US taxpayer over 100 billion dollars per year, no one really believes that illegal immigrants have more rights than citizens, yet these are given in in the form of aid, minimal to no sentences for violent crime (even murder) and voting rights mostly in liberal districts. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural in spite of what science has to say. You have to believe that a 5 year old child can decide to change their gender, but has to be told when to go to bed or what to eat. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal. You have to believe that orthodox Islam is peaceful while 1400 years of jihad history proves otherwise. You have to believe that the Crusaders were the aggressors while jihad overran Europe, India and North Africa for five centuries before the Crusades started. Therefore we are virtuous when we tell the lie and we are mean and bad and sexist when we speak what is obvious to everyone.
Over-Reliance on Science is self-refuting. With the claim: "Science is the only way to really know the truth," ask how science helped come to this conclusion, because it cannot be verified or confirmed as "true" by science. The statement is a philosophical definition that defies its own claim.
An over-reliance on science is limiting – by it’s definition. There are many things that we know without the benefit of science, for example. Logical and mathematical truths: because they are foundational and precede science. Metaphysical truths about the reality of the external world cannot be determined through the use of science by the definition of science. Science cannot determine what moral and ethical truths are virtuous or vile. Science cannot help with aesthetic truths to determine or judge what is beautiful or what is ugly. Science can tell us nothing about historical truths like who was president in 1852.
If we are going to reject all categories of truth that can't be determined or verified scientifically, we are going to have to reject all truths related to logic, mathematics, morals, aesthetics, history or metaphysics. The theistic worldview has the ability to embrace natural explanations without rejecting the supernatural ones out of hand. The theist or atheist or sceptic scientist have the same scientific data before them. An over-reliance on science, scientism, causes us to reject anything supernatural before we even begin to investigate an explanation.
According to a 2014 Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) study, there are 5 times as many liberal teachers in the system in the USA as are conservative. Since liberals through propaganda are seen as open-minded believers of science, and conservatives as close-minded, most people do not worry about it – because ‘science!’ But, evidentially, if the teachers and professors promoted science and scientific thinking at every level of the education system, the USA should be leading the world in math and science - and yet that is not the case. When the USSR (Russia) beat the USA in the space race when they put the first earth based satellite (Sputnik 1) into orbit in October 1957, politicians and academia in the USA were inflamed. Immediately work was done to bump up math and science in the education system. However, American teens (still) lag behind the majority of the developed world in reading, math and science. The standards are currently being lowered further with Common Core curriculum.
So why is it that students in the USA performed better under Bible-believing Conservatives than they do under open-minded science-believing Liberals? Is the pro-science stance that Liberals take hypocritical? The Liberal politicians of mid-20th century saw that by putting down religious beliefs of their opponents through a fabricated war between science and religion as means to score political victories. Linking science and politics in the USA was not from a desire to promote science but to remove conservatives from politics. If the motive was science we would have seen funding for various science projects like NASA missions grow, yet the inverse has happened. The USA was working on a hadron collider long before Europe, but the funding for the program stopped under a liberal president in 1993.
The liberal stance on science is that science is supported as long as it ridicules people’s private beliefs and to gain political power – after which instead of flourishing, science suffers. Currently, in spite of non-politicised scientific data around gender fluidity, gender roles, work ethic remuneration, and racial bias, the liberalist war is pitched against the ‘evil’ of ‘white Christianized male supremacism’. The solution to this ‘evil’ is of course to penalize and belittle these achievers in society, and to lower the standard of education (math, science, languages) even more so that participation, and not excellence, is the outcome.