Liberals like to portray themselves as defenders of science and religion against the irrational superstition of conservatives, especially religious conservatives. But, as James Taranto points out in the WSJ, their support of science is highly conditional. When scientific evidence contradicts their naive faith, liberals can be as anti-science as any bible-thumper.
Take for example the recent study published in the Stanford Law Review showing that affirmative action policies have resulted in a disproportionately high failure rate among Blacks admitted to law school. This study has instigated a major debate, involving the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the State Bar of California, over whether such research can be supported.
Read about it here.
Read Taranto's commentary here.
So, a substantial number of liberals think it is OK to obstruct scientific research into areas that threaten to contradict their cherished beliefs. Oh my!
Actually, this is nothing new. The major challenge to the thriving field of "sociobiology" [now re-conceived as "evolutionary psychology"] and the brand-new scientific field of study titled "human biodiversity" comes from the left. Their attitude has always been that the conclusions of evolutionary studies represent hard scientific truth except when they are applied to today's human populations. Then they must be repudiated.
