Having little trust in titles or Germans, the French began to construct a massive series of fortifications 12 years after the end of "the war to end all wars." The Maginot Line consisted of 142 forts plus another 352 armored gun emplacements connected by tunnels and railways that stretched the full 87 miles of the Franco-German border. It worked, in a manner of speaking, as the German attacks on it were easily withstood, but it now stands as one of history's most famous examples of futility as the German commander Heinz Guderian simply sent von Kleist's two Panzer Corps through the Ardennes and around the line in the classic example of blitzkrieg.
Over the last few decades, secular scientists have constructed a similar defensive line against religion. For a variety of spurious reasons, they have concocted a dramatic narrative that postulates themselves as a noble collective of Galileos in peril of persecution from the God-addled, anti-science religious masses. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the empirical data shows that the predominantly Christian United States produces more science per capita than any of the many more secular nations, and Western military leaders are forced to rattle their sabers to prevent the scientists of the Islamic Republic of Iran from developing the latest in nuclear weapons technology.
As I have demonstrated in "The Irrational Atheist," religion is not a threat to any aspect of science: It does not threaten the knowledge base, it does not threaten the method and it does not threaten the profession. It never has.
Advertisement - story continues below
But this is not to say there is not a genuine threat to all three aspects of science today. Unsurprisingly, it comes from the same force that is the primary threat to the survival of Western civilization: female equalitarianism. Flush with their success in decimating the collegiate sports programs of America, the equalitarians have now set their sights on applying the infamous Title IX quotas to science education, despite the fact that women already earn 57 percent of bachelor's degrees, 59 percent of master's degrees and a majority of doctorates. If successful in this effort, and initial signs indicate that they probably will be, in 30 years, academic science in America will be no more intellectually respectable or relevant than womyn's studies are today.
TRENDING: Grace vs. the law: A false paradigm
The bizarre propositions of equalitarianism always sound harmless and amusing at first because they are so absurd. What the rational observer often fails to understand, however, is that these propositions don't sound the least bit absurd to the equalitarian proponent because the average equalitarian is fundamentally an intellectual cave-dweller with no more interest in reason or capacity for logical thought than a hungry kitten. The idea of biology classes being taught by lesbian professors who believe that heterosexual procreation is a myth or calculus courses being taught by women who can't do long division may sound impossible today, but tell that to any software developer, and he'll be able to provide you with plenty of current examples of computer science engineers, some with advanced CS degrees, who have no idea how to even begin writing a computer program.
Women love education; it's the actual application they don't particularly like. Whereas the first thought of a woman who enjoys the idea of painting is to take an art appreciation class, a similarly interested man is more likely to just pick up a paintbrush and paint something – usually a naked woman.
Advertisement - story continues below
Between 1988 and 2004, Title IX caused the elimination of 239 NCAA Division One men's teams and the addition of 682 women's teams. Those 239 teams represented about 8.3 percent of the total, and the rate of elimination is increasing because, as the proportion of men attending universities continues to fall, more universities will fall afoul of the Title IX proportionality requirement and be forced to cut more men's teams to stay in compliance with the congressionally dictated ratio. Now, what realistically offers a greater threat to science: a lack of public funding for what has proven to be the red herring of embryonic stem-cell research, or a politically driven 10 percent reduction of the male scientific community in the next 15 years, along with the enforced employment of three times that many female "scientists"?
Of course, this will sound to equalitarians and their sympathizers like nothing more than male whining, but it's nothing of the sort. Because they are the intellectual driving force of humanity, men will be fine. They will simply continue to do what they have always done and pursue the same challenges they have always pursued, focused on the realities of success rather than its superficial attributes. It is the institutions they are exiting, voluntarily and involuntarily, that will be destroyed instead. It is written that "women ruin everything"; having destroyed the liberal arts, the classics and the pseudo-sciences, it is now abundantly clear that the more rigorous sciences are next on the equalitarians' destructive agenda. And so, in the not-too-distant future, two plus two will finally be determined to equal five if a women feels that it should, or at least it will as long as she happens to feel that way.