The GOP War On Science

But before Mr. Malarkey gets too gleeful... (5.00 / 1)

...the Democrats have their problems around science also.

They...

* Reject the International HapMap project to map differences among races to tailor medicines
* Reject any neuroscience showing any differences in the brains of men and women
* Reject any statistical analysis of student achievement by race, no matter how carefully done
* Scare people with anti-scientific claims about GMOs, RBST (Bovine Hormones) and other food-related things such as saying organic food is healthier when studies continue to deny this
* One of the most powerful constituencies in the party (trial lawyers) is dedicated to false scientific claims about things like the dangers of breast implants, autism from thermisol, and much more.
* They also take the more speculative claims about climate change - especially the predictive models - and make scientific claims about them that are not science.

There are other little things, but the pattern of rejecting knowledge that goes against beliefs you hold is the same.

But surely, it is we, and not they, who have the image problem here.

---

by: edfactor @ Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 12:34:54 PM UTC

Easy to reconcile age of Earth (0.00 / 0)

It's easy enough to reconcile a 4 Billion year old Earth with a 6,000 year old Earth: just say that God created a 4 Billion year old Earth in a 14 Billion year old universe about 6,000 years ago. The Bible doesn't have God sitting around waiting for the trees to grow in the Garden of Eden before creating Man, or waiting for Adam and Eve to grow up from babies before making the animals, the Bible says God created them fully grown adults. So the Earth wouldn't seem to be 6,000 years to us if the trees didn't seem one day old to Adam.

And at least Todd Akin wasn't saying that life starts at fertilization, which is not a scientific or legal fact and which leads to drastically worse outcomes than saying that women have ways to shut down an impending pregnancy in bad situations before the life begins, and it is OK for them to do so, which is true and none of your business how they do it.

I agree with you on climate change denial and intelligent design, but those beliefs seem to have come from people with secret agendas I think, they aren't biblical or conservative beliefs, they are free market libertarian inventions.

And yes I would include the bans on using embryos for science as being anti-science, they are at least as relevant.

I agree we can be both pro-science and pro-religion. I think pushing for an Egg and Sperm law that bans creating people by any means other than joining a man and a woman's natural unmodified gametes but doesn't ban research or make extreme claims about when Personhood and rights begin is a great way to give scientists a clear limit going forward. We don't have to embrace Transhumanism and genetic engineering of children to not be anti-science.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 13:23:00 PM UTC

Weird (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Howard -

That is the strangest explanation of a "young earth" I have ever heard. Of course, the science shows a continuous expansion of the universe and there are many ways we know that. If you want to say, "Well, God arranged it this way or that in order to fool us...." If you want to go there, than I suppose anything is possible. But that isn't science at all. It's just conjecture.

As for resistance to climate change, I think it is major corporations who rightly fear the consequences for them if government acted on this knowledge, combined with a legitimate fear among Republicans that this is the latest excuse of the same old environmental crowd who wants us, as a species, to return to our caves and huts in order to save the planet.

Intelligent design was an odd innovation to make creationism more palatable to a more skeptical public. It didn't work as everyone knew what was being attempted. (Even evangelicals didn't like reducing God to being just a designer.) But for several years, it became a way for politicians to pander to evangelicals, but appear to be for something that appeared scientific. However, the clever argumentation techniques of the nutjobs at the Discovery Institute were amazingly effective (create the controversy, and then the battle call, "Teach the controversy!") and they caught the science education community by surprise. They found they couldn't win what they thought was an easy debate and were wiser for it. However, their short-term losses there made them more prepared for those who would resist the science of climatology.

As for your usual obsession with conception - I think that is primarily a matter of morality or ethics, and not science, though increasingly powerful reproductive science techniques will create a crazy new world that we are not prepared for. At that time, maybe 5 years from now, you will finally be talking about something people are really concerned about. ;-)

---

by: edfactor @ Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 14:14:58 PM UTC

Not to fool us (0.00 / 0)

God is not trying to fool us with background radiation of anything, any more than God is trying to fool us by giving us eyes and things to see with them. That's just the universe, it isn't a trick.

Do you consider theoretical physics like John Archibald Wheeler's It From Bit to be science or conjecture?

And why should we waste five years and spend billions of dollars and divide the country and our party when we can easily see how it should be resolved right now?

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 15:55:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rubio is not Catholic (5.00 / 1)

Rubio is not Catholic. He is evangelical.

FYI.

On climate change.  The earth has not appreciably warmed for 20 years.  IN this hyper sensitive on-demand world we live in, we over anyalyze small changes in natural systems.  I'm all for conservation, increasing fuel economy to drive down foreign oil dependence, heck I use the same plastic cup for my coffee every day at the convenience store, don't use bags when I can, etc.  These are just choices that I make.  

But the climate scientists lose me with their sky is falling mentality. If their funding drys up I think they'd admit that man is not destroying the planets climate.  

On evolution etc, I'm with you.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 14:31:33 PM UTC

Rubio is Catholic (0.00 / 0)

Rubio explicitly calls himself a Catholic, even though he sometimes attends evangelical services. Multiple news stories quote him as calling himself Catholic, including this one:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...

Rob - your continued denial of all of climatology continues to be an embarrassment. Are there some scientists with their thumb on the scale? Absolutely. Are there Democrats who take the science and do bad things with it? Absolutely.

But thousands of scientists all over the world agree that climate change is real and we are the cause. It is now silly to deny the main premise of the theory, even though it is fine to ask questions about some of the details or the many types of predictive models there are.

So how about this test: find someone you know who has either been a farmer or a very serious gardener for more than 15 years. Ask them about the growing seasons (or zones) in their experience, and how those have changed over the years.

I have spoken to farmers and gardeners from all over New England and there is no doubt that things have noticeably changed. In fact, even in my travels around the world, I have heard that from even more people. Everyone gets it - even without the science. Only American conservative Republican activists are so adamantly against the theory.

So, I can make all kinds of arguments about how we can actually track how much oil and gas are burned and how much extra carbon there is in the atmosphere. I can talk about tracking carbon isotopes in the atmosphere that can only come from old, non-radioactive carbon that plants take up. I can talk about thermometers all over the world that weren't put there by Al Gore. I can say that for every doubting article in a minor British newspaper that you post to Facebook, there are 100 more scientific papers backing up climate change and our role in it.

I suppose at some point the part of you that resists will give in. What will it take? I don't know.

Oh - and because my point was that the party is perceived as being anti-science, it doesn't matter whether it is happening - on that issue. Because if the majority of Americans think it is real, and think we are against it, then it reinforces the GOP as anti-science whether it is true or not. ;-)

---

by: edfactor @ Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 11:11:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Globo Warming - And the "Charley on the MTA Rule" (5.00 / 1)

There is one truth to global warming that hasn't changed since the hell and high water predictions started coming out 20 years ago.  I call it the "Charley on the MTA Rule"  It goes like this . . .

99.9999999% of the people on this planet have no Fucking clue what they are talking about when it comes to Globo Warming.  This includes bloggers like Charley on the MTA and middle aged moms who happen to teach Science in the public fool system.

At the end of the day it just comes down to the fact that people in general always want to tell another people what to do and how to live.  Nothing more nothing less.        

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 15:29:51 PM UTC

The Rubio thing (0.00 / 0)

was nothing more than a question to see if he was a YEC believer.  I actually have no problem with what Rubio said and I'm a freakin' non-theist.

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to growI'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

The Earth's been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.....before Man and his big bad ole SUVs.  PDO, NAO, AO, AMO...hell, there are natural oceanic oscillations we don't even know about yet.

......but one thing's for sure.....the "science" on big bad ole man-made global warming does not exist.  "Science" is the specific notion of hypothesizing, testing, observing and concluding....thus far, man made GW hasn't made it out of the hypothesizing stage....more importantly, it has FAILED to produce ONE predicted result.
For 25 years, I've listened to doom and gloom that's going to hit "25 years from now".....it's now 25 years later and it never has....hell, some predict "10 years from now"

Some hypothesis...

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 16:28:45 PM UTC

No Comment Is Waging War? (0.00 / 0)

Rubio didnt bring this up. Rubio didnt even want to discuss this. Rubio basically gave a 'no commnet'. Rubio gave an evasive answer to a stupid question that has nothing to do with anything except ridiculing people of faith.

---

by: swamp_yankee @ Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 17:33:10 PM UTC

Here is someone else making my same point, Ed (0.00 / 0)

Ed said my response was "weird"  so I wanted to show other people make the same argument about God creating an old Universe.

http://www.caintv.com/the-very...

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 17:13:57 PM UTC

Don't listen to Ed, John! (0.00 / 0)

EdFactor QA'a websites in his spare time for fun!  PWA HA! PWA HA HA HA!  Oh god!

One time Ed was at a bar and like 5 chicks were totally coming on to him.  And he was like, "Hey did you chicks see Richard Tisei's website?  It's powered by Soapblox!  Oh man that's awesome!  PWA HA!  PWAAAAA HAAA HA!


Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 14:09:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"War On Science", indeed. (0.00 / 0)

You have bought into one of the dumbest, most mendacious memes of the kook left.

---

by: geo999 @ Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 14:06:40 PM UTC

Perhaps there is another explanation edfactor..... (5.00 / 1)

I was watching a wonderful argument recently regarding the age of the universe and how it reconciles with the 'Genesis' creation of the Old Testament.  The argument is basically this:

According to Einstein, time is relative and actually slows as the object measuring time moves closer to the speed of light.  We have all heard the anecdotal argument of newborn twins separated, with one living on earth and the other placed in a spaceship moving at the speed of light.  30 years later the spaceship returns and the twin on board has barely aged, while the other is now obviously 30 years old.  This argument of Einstein's is considered exact science.  

Take that principle of slow, or varying time and apply it to the birth of the universe with massive amounts of 'stuff' blasting from the big-bang through the universe at speeds approaching, or even exceeding the speed of light.  To us on Earth the measure of time has been billions of years, while the measure of time relative to the moving 'stuff' has been days.  

The Old Testament - specifically the first 5 books was writtten by Moses and divinely inspired by God.  If the scientific theory explained above is true, and it seems to be, then God would be measuring time relative to the 'slow time' of universal creation and the matter of the universe moving at speeds close to the speed of light.  In other words, only 6 days passed in the creation of the universe 'relative' to the moving matter described in Genesis and the big-bang theory.  

So Ed, we can sit here and say that our religious beliefs don't jive with out scientific beliefs and therefore one is wrong and the other right.  (and we as Republicans have chosen the wrong) But that would be wrong as Einstein's theory, when applied using the logic I just layed out are actually quite consistent.  

This theory is known as 'Time Dilation' and is argued in many forums, one of which is here. But a better video explanation is below:

As for the argument of global warming, well when someone comes forward with the integrity of God and makes the argument I will listen.  So far, only name-callers, proven liars and hypocrits seem to make the argument....

Ed Markey is now the official 'cheapest' man on earth.  1.5 percent to charity while the average American gave 3 times as much...

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 22:11:06 PM UTC

Good Post (0.00 / 0)

I have long believed that the six day thing was all a matter of perspective.
Those who claim this idea is something new don't know what they're talking about.

---

by: geo999 @ Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 02:45:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Furthermore, regarding the global warming experts.... (0.00 / 0)

like Al Gore - he refuses to debate anyone on the subject.  To Al Gore the debate is over and its time to start spending money.

[Gore] was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.

"I don't mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?" asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.

"I want to be polite to you," Mr. Gore responded. But, no. "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a 'on the one hand, on the other hand' issue," he said. "It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake," he added.

And he (Al Gore) refused another debate as well:

In April 2009, climate realist Christopher Monckton, a former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was invited to testify before Congress about global warming alongside Nobel laureate Al Gore.

The following video of a debate that happened in Australia Tuesday will perfectly demonstrate why Monckton, after he had arrived at Reagan International Airport in Washington, D.C., was informed that House Democrats refused his appearance at the hearing:

And another debate refused by Al Gore from Author Dennis Avery :

[Our two] books represent the two leading explanations for the earth's recent temperature changes-and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other. How else can people make informed decisions? Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.

So far the VP has not had a chance to call him back!!!

I refuse to accept the argument of manmade global warming based entirely on the premise that I am a jerk if I don't.  That is no way to frame an argument between two intellectuals and I refuse to succumb to the strong, and often wrong, arm of public opinion.  And furthermore, americans as a whole should refuse to allocate trillions of dollars (thats what they are asking for in the budget) to government spending programs based on something they refuse to even talk about outisde of some clandestine scientific ivory tower.  At least with seemingly conflicting ideas about the creation and age of the universe people are willing to still have a debate.

Ed Markey is now the official 'cheapest' man on earth.  1.5 percent to charity while the average American gave 3 times as much...

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:36:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]