Remember when John Huntsman warned that the Republican Party was in danger of becoming “anti-science?” That epithet is thrown around quite liberally by a certain type advocate, you know, those with a smug opinion of their own intellectual superiority.

Last week I was attacked in Science 2.0 as “anti-science” and “hating biology,” even seeing the biological sciences as a “tool of Lucifer.” Pretty remarkable, given that the outburst was occasioned because I criticized the creation of three parent embryos on my Human Exceptionalism blog, an issue about which many certainly have qualms.

That got me to thinking about the “anti-science” canard, the subject of my today’s First Things column. I note the intellectual dishonesty of the charge–which is usually wielded over ethical, rather than actual science debates. It is also used as a cudgel over intense policy disputes or when the “scientific consensus” is questioned. Here is my conclusion:

Advocates who castigate political adversaries or brand heterodox scientific approaches as “anti-science” intend their ad hominem ridicule to protect establishment views and policy agendas against those who would dare to challenge them. The point is to prevent discourse and protect orthodoxy. Ironically, if anything really is “anti-science,” that is.

Enough of the “anti-science” garbage. It’s uncivil and avoids actual intellectual engagement.