Scientific American, a supposedly prestigious science magazine founded in 1845, lit a fire to its last shred of credibility Monday by endorsing Kamala Harris for president.

The journal has only made presidential endorsements twice, the first time being in 2020 when the editorial board backed then-candidate Joe Biden, a very erudite and scientific man with the scholarly sensibilities of a Victorian gentleman. In an equally fawning and delusional endorsement, the editors at Scientific American practically salivate at the idea of a Kamala presidency.

“She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy,” they write of Harris. “She supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts.” (Click HERE to sign up for John’s weekly newsletter)

The editors also note that as president she would be “relying on science” (read, “left-wing orthodoxy”), “solid evidence” (read, “data and numbers cooked by hacks and government bureaucrats”), and a “willingness to learn from experience” (we’d hope so, but read, “complete lack of self-awareness”).

On Donald Trump, however, the editors argue that he “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

Trump “goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living,” they write, breathlessly.

I’m not here to debunk every point the editors make in support of Harris, and I’m not here to argue why a Trump presidency would be good for science (who’s sitting in the Oval Office should really have no bearing on whether science flourishes in America). That would take far too long, and far too many Zyns, and I frankly don’t care.

I simply want to point out the utter absurdity that a journal of science, certainly one that seeks to maintain its authority and credibility in a social media world where former credible authorities have been all but destroyed, would ever want to jump into politics in such a crude, pedestrian manner for such an unimpressive and unintelligent candidate.

Aside from virtue signaling and making themselves feel morally superior, what is the upside of Scientific American endorsing a political candidate? No voter cares about what they have to say about politics, and no swing voter in Pennsylvania or North Carolina will read their litany of propaganda and say to themselves, “Well, sheeit, that’s the one. Harris for president.” They are only harming themselves, and for a magazine that was recently dunked on by a former columnist for being too left-wing, this is not the move. (RELATED: Former Columnist Exposes Scientific American’s Sudden Descent Into Left-Wing Ideology)

For a long time, it seems, ‘The Science’ has been turning into a refuge for careerists and hacks, ideologues and do-gooders, bureaucrats such as Tony Fauci or C-list actors such as Bill Nye, all of whom have the combined mental acuity of a braindead cow. Maybe this has always been the case, throughout all of history. Maybe ‘The Science’ was the Catholic Church when Galileo challenged its biblical worldview. Maybe ‘The Science’ hated the fact that Albert Einstein was just a humble patent clerk, a lone wolf working on the periphery of institutions.

I don’t know. What I do know is that, when a history of science in the 21st Century is written, Scientific American will be but a footnote, if that.