Most people do not know the purpose behind Charles Darwin’s famous book, The Origin of Species. In fact, they don’t even know the full title of the book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, first published in 1859 (London). In the sociological context of the world in which Darwin lived, it is abundantly clear that that book’s primary purpose was to justify the white European Christian dominance in the world. Never before had any “species” of humanity accomplished so much, so quickly, and so permanently. Darwin’s book is a classic example of the political nature of science, and the perfectly biased purposes that underlie the most highly professed “objectivity.” Science, like the arts, is a dependent enterprise, not for the free market. Sicence depends on grants, on funding, on the outside opinions and predilections of others.
Charles Darwin, 1809-1882
There are many such cases to cite. Remember the political context of the famous “Lucy” discovery? “Lucy” is the small collection of bones found in 1974 by Donald Johanson. It was in Afar, Ethiopia. Lucy was black. Three and a half million years old black. Johanson’s preeminently politically correct book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) was sensational. It was marketed with scintillating sentiments. Lucy was “the oldest, most complete, best-preserved skeleton of any erect-walking human ancestor ever found.” She was declared “a new species,” and she would require a completely new assessment of the origins of the human race, etc. But, the real message was clear enough: Lucy validated the 1960’s Civil Rights movement of the American Negro. Lucy was just another “beautiful” element designed to make black folks feel better about themselves. Lucy was presumed “black,” because she was found in Ethiopia. She wasn’t at all human, either, but, was presumed an ancestor of all humanity, because she was the oldest. (Oddly, not even Richard Poe, in his inimitable Black Spark White Fire  even so much as mentions Lucy, or Johanson. Poe of course attempts to attribute all things civilized to the Negro race.)
Donald Johanson, with his beloved Negress, “Lucy.”
Darwin (1809-1882) certainly lived at a time when the white race was exceedingly self-conscious of its whiteness. Success terrorized the white race. The coruscate of America had dazzled the Collective Conscious of humanity, and had to be accounted for in a way that exempted the white Christian civilization from both credit and responsibility, from honor and guilt. In a way, Darwin’s Origin of Species declared that the white race was simply the “fittest,” and therefore rose to the top, and “survived” most effectively.
Of course, the economic element was not included in Darwin’s assessments. As Richard Hofstadter later pointed out in Social Darwinism in American Thought (1944), the opposite is actually true. The fittest don’t survive among the human species at all. They only rise to a temporary dominance. (Pat Buchanan’s The Death of the West  tends to support the same idea.) The masses of poor only multiply the more, while the superiors intelligently leave off excessive reproduction to secure the best material advantage for their few offspring. The poor survive and dominate through mass numbers, and the economic burden they inevitably place on the guilt-ridden white European Christian culture.
Be that as it may, the Darwin theory of evolution is so untterly unscientific and disproven at this point it is mentioned only as an example of the bias and prejudice of science as an enterprise.
But then, science lives on. Global warming is probably the most politicized–that is, biased–form of “science” in our modern times. Nothing could be more unscientific in its concept, its historical track record, and in its obvious political influence. It is perhaps pure politics. Extracted from environmental concerns, which are legitimate, global warming is a fantasy employed strictly for political purposes.
Finally, on the matter of “Intellegent Design,” the designated term for people who believe in the Biblical Creator but who are trying to market the belief in less than biased-sounding terms, I would say theirs is a bit redundant. “Design” means intelligence, by definition. There is no “design” without a designer. Nevertheless, creationists, if they indeed believe the account in Genesis, must be willing to believe that it all came about in 144 hours, not eons of time. That’s what the Bible says, and means. And they must believe that the divinely appointed memorial for creation is the sabbath, the seventh day of the week. It isn’t Sunday. This is not an irrelevant concern, at a time when Christians are fighting to protect religious freedom, freedom speech, and freedom from governmental interference. I would think the safest course to pursue is to fight to preserve the truth of the Biblical record–for just what it says, never mind whether one is allowed to teach it in public schools.
The Bible also makes declarations about the origin of race and nationhood. These must be accepted as well as the account of creation. Any other fight for religious freedom will inevitably include the rights of murderous Muslims. In other words, it isn’t religious freedom that’s the prize. It’s truth. Truth is what should be fought for. “Religious freedom” is an abstraction that includes our enemies.
I hope I have made myself clear.