The right gets a lot of flak for its supposed tendency for science denialism. Rejecting climate science, endorsing creationism, so on and so on. As a rightist, I think that to a certain extent, climate science deniers and creationists deserved it. Creationism, especially young-earth creationism, deserves to be belittled and mocked. Evolution is so blindingly obvious that nothing in biology makes sense without it. It is so intuitive that even creationists act in understanding that traits and behaviors are inherited and selected.
In fact, many creationists act like they actually believe in evolution, while many supposedly secular leftists don't.
To be more precise, many seem to be convinced that evolution stops at the neck. From the neck upwards, humans stay the same, endowed with equal dignity by the Creator. This is soft-core creationism in the same way that Intelligent Design is also soft-core creationism. It is simply impossible, according to the mainstream leftist trend, that visible traits imply certain behavioral tendencies. Women, for example, have completely the exact same brain, the exact same inborn preferences and traits, as men do. The median black person is as smart and advantaged at birth as the median white person. Everyone is born with equal ability to succeed. There couldn't be possibly such thing as population clusters with varying average cognitive ability. Women want to be engineers and computer scientists as much as men do.
This doctrine of blank slate egalitarianism is pure, undiluted religion - worse, these claims are falsifiable and have actually been falsified. Augustine of Hippo was more rational than modern leftists. Now, the question of policy prescriptions is different from the question of empirical fact. It's entirely possible to advocate egalitarian policies while keeping inherited traits and behaviors in mind. The proposed policies no doubt will differ from the blank-slatists', but that's the point - when you figure out that x doesn't help anyone you changed it to y or to z instead of doubling down.
But my observation is that hereditarian leftists have always been regarded as crypto-rightists, or worse, crypto-fascists, by the figures of the mainstream left. You can be an atheist and a rightist, you can be a gay and a rightist, you can be a godless social darwinist and a rightist, but leftism seems to go beyond egalitarian redistributionism and is instead defined through certain key dogma that contradict reality. Reject them, and you're the part of the Intellectual Dark Web, or worse: Alt-Rightism.
tl;dr: We have a serious problem of science denialism from the left in the form of blank-slate social sciences. What do you think about it, and what should we do?
link for elaborations and sources
