The Science of Propaganda: How the Left has Used Science Worship to Drastically Shift the Debate on Social Issues in the United States
ByFor the last decade or so, the American Psychological Association has insisted that scientific evidence has proven that homosexuality is genetically determined. Opinion polls suggest their efforts and the efforts of other progressive groups to “educate” the public in regards to the genetic cause of homosexuality have dramatically influenced the way Americans view homosexuality and homosexual rights.
It’s not difficult to see why a genetic cause has drastically changed the discussion of homosexuality in America. After all, most Americans believe it is unjust for someone to be punished or treated differently because of some characteristic that they were born with and, therefore, did not choose and cannot control, like their race or gender. That’s a lot of incentive for those who believe that homosexual lifestyles should be openly-accepted as equal in all ways to heterosexual ones to misrepresent the research.
Psychologist A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH, believes that is, in fact, just what has happened. In a recent paper, he reveals that the American Psychological Association has finally decided to quietly revise its statement on the causes of homosexuality in a revision of their pamphlet entitled, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality." In a previous version of the pamphlet, the American Psychological Association stated that recent scientific findings indicate that homosexuality is determined by genetic factors. The pamphlet now reads:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…"
If there is no scientific consensus there is a “homosexual gene” that determines sexual orientation, why is it that the American Psychological Association has asserted otherwise for so long? Dr. Byrd suggests that the answer can be found in the following words, written by a prominent member of the organization:
"…it may be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise. If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?"
That is a statement for a spin doctor, not a scientist. The psychological community’s desire to protect homosexuals from abuse is understandable, but misleading or misrepresenting themselves or the public about research results is unacceptable.
The real problem for people who still respect truth as a value isn’t limited to the debate over homosexuality. The political and personal biases of leading members of social scientific organizations have created real roadblocks to exploring scientific foundations for politically incorrect positions over the last few decades. The dogmatic positions of scientific governance organizations have made it difficult to obtain funding for contrary research and impossible to conduct the research without suffering professional stigma. The social scientist who wants to conduct research into treatment for homosexuality after the APA determines that homosexuality will not be considered a mental illness will have his or her work cut out for them. Likewise, the biologist who wants to explore alternatives to evolution theory or the physicist who questions whether God or something like Him could have had a hand in creation both face substantial institutional roadblocks that go beyond mere political correctness.
Nor is the use and abuse of the scientific community limited to controversial social issues. Those gearing up for the debate over federal carbon-credit trading programs later in the fall won’t be shocked to find that there are severe institutional roadblocks to producing science that contradicts global warming theory and that the state of the research
Most people in modern western societies, including the United States, have a great deal of respect for science and technology – both as institutions and as the means of discovering the truth. The politicization of science hasn’t changed that. While religion, intuition, and consensus opinion may still influence value determination, there is no respectable alternative means of deciding complicated issues of fact in public discourse today. Science even more so than sound bites will determine the political judgments of the next generation and the future of American policy.
Social conservatives who have been called ignorant, superstitious, or backwards for their beliefs that homosexuality may at best be influenced and not determined by biology should already understand this and take the changing contours of the debate on homosexuality and marriage as a lesson. Given that arguments about the way we ought to live and how we ought to be governed usually come down not only to questions of value, but also to questions of fact, the battle to save America’s scientific community may very well be the turning point in the war to save America’s soul.
