Unscientific Science

The magazine/emag Nature - the first to virulently attack 'intelligent design' or creationists, shows their own beliefs and idealogy skew things just as bad. The topic of this week's editorial:

EDITORIAL

Starting at the top
Scientific élites retain a severe gender imbalance.

How can science be objective if it is concerned in fulfilling a feminist agenda when there is an increasing body of evidence that well, men and women are different and the males are more likely to become scientists and engineers not because of discrimination but because of innate ability. Even some lefties admit that.:

Let's be clear about what this isn't. It isn't a claim about overall intelligence. Nor is it a justification for tolerating discrimination between two people of equal ability or accomplishment. Nor is it a concession that genetic handicaps can't be overcome. Nor is it a statement that girls are inferior at math and science: It doesn't dictate the limits of any individual, and it doesn't entail that men are on average better than women at math or science. It's a claim that the distribution of male scores is more spread out than the distribution of female scores—a greater percentage at both the bottom and the top. Nobody bats an eye at the overrepresentation of men in prison. But suggest that the excess might go both ways, and you're a pig

---

I wish some economist would calculate the cost of gender and ethinic equality programs on the economy and hampering progress. Its just a guess, but I imagine if we weren't so obsessed with diversity we would have colonies on Mars by now (and no troops in Iraq!)