Oftentimes, those on the political left assume the mantle of moral superiority, and superiority in their knowledge of scientific advances as well.  Both are self-serving and usually fraudulent claims, but that doesn't stop liberals from pretending they are our intellectual and philosophical betters.  No matter how much factual evidence they're shown that disproves an argument, they continue to spout the same nonsense and then accuse those who don't agree with them of being behind the times or anti-science.  Their alleged scientific proof is often filled with holes or is nonexistent altogether, even as the liberal news media promote their unsubstantiated theories.  Disagreement is met with angry and sometimes violent rebukes from those who specialize in outrage instead of honest debate.

The most recent area of scientific legerdemain is, of course, climate change, or man-made global warming.  For the past decade or so, we've been inundated with dire predictions of earthly catastrophes that have yet to materialize, while we're shamed into reducing our imagined "carbon footprint" in order to save the Earth.  We're told the science is settled and that no further debate is necessary, despite no significant change in the worldwide climate or temperature.  Meanwhile, there is proof of faked data, which was revealed in the "Climategate" email scandal, and proof that the methodology for gathering temperature was fraudulent, as exposed by author Christopher Horner in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.  There is abundant verifiable evidence that man-made global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the power-hungry and embraced by the gullible, but we're told that the science is settled and that dissent is wrong or ignorant or even stupid.

Another area where the debate is allegedly over is homosexuality.  Lately, we've been assaulted by liberals who claim that an aberrant sexual orientation is assigned by heredity and that we should accept it as normal.  Of course, there is zero reliable evidence to support that theory, and the search for the elusive and most likely completely fictitious "gay gene" is ongoing.  However, we're told that the science is settled there, too, because anecdotal accounts that Dave or Jane was always attracted to members of the same sex are supposed to be unassailable truth, regardless of the psychological conditions of Dave and Jane.  If we disagree, we're anti-science or, of course, bigots.  There is no actual proof that the science is anywhere near settled on this, nor that it isn't a choice, but we're told we need to change laws and the definition of marriage because feelings are all that matter.  Oh, and "love wins," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Just as hotly contested as the previous two topics is the theory of evolution, which is now the official version of how mankind came into being on planet Earth.  One, and only one, explanation is allowed to be taught in schools, and it has nothing to do with a deity, because not everyone believes in a supreme being.  So atheist scientists who don't believe in a supreme being are unwilling to consider the possibility that something other than a self-generated desire to change allowed the species to survive, thrive, and adapt in their environments.

Atheists in science have convinced themselves and other atheists that evolution is reality, but that isn't enough.  Their goal is to silence the debate by calling their theory "settled science" as well.

In her book Godless" Ann Coulter confronted the so-called settled science of evolution and found significant gaps in it.  In fact, there is no supporting fossil evidence that proves that theory, and, Coulter notes, "[t]he evolutionists' proof is their capacity to concoct a story."  Yet evolution is taught as fact, and any deviation from that belief is eliminated from public schools and universities.  Once again, the science is settled because liberals say so.

To question any of the liberals' current holy trinity is to risk being ostracized, ridiculed, silenced, and even re-educated until conformity to their dogma is achieved.  There is no room for alternate theories in the world of liberal beliefs.

To the ideological group that purports to be open-minded to other beliefs, liberals show an amazing ability to remain entrenched in their accepted groupthink universe while they accuse any dissenters of not being open-minded.  However, the definition of "open-minded" is not to accept anything that's told to us, no matter how bizarre or unfounded in fact.  The definition is "willing to consider new ideas; unprejudiced."  Nowhere in that short phrase is it suggested that we abandon logic, evidence, or common sense for the sake of the feelings of another person.

Even without evidence, the issue isn't whether or not these theories are plausible.  The issue is that scientific theories should be treated exactly as all assertions are treated in our legal system, which is with actual verifiable evidence rather than bluster, outrage, and inflexible adherence to wishful thinking.  Prove it, or stop saying the science is settled.