The Pew Research Center has come out with a poll comparing scientists’ attitudes (on scientific and other matters) with those of the general public. Among its revelations was that Republicans comprise 6 percent of scientists. That’s not a typo. Meanwhile, 55 percent of the scientists polled were Democrats, 32 percent were independents, and others were none of the above.
Throw in the scientists who are independents but lean toward a party, and the numbers change only modestly: the GOP figure goes up to 12 percent, while the Democrats get 81 percent.
By contrast, Pew puts the Republican share of the general public at 23 percent — a dismal figure but at least well removed from single digits — compared to 35 percent for Democrats and 34 percent for independents. In terms of ideological self-rating, there again is a big gap between scientists and the general public. The breakdown among scientists was 9 percent conservative, 35 percent moderate and 52 percent liberal, while among the general public, conservatives were 37 percent, moderates 38 percent and liberals 20 percent. Throw in “very liberal” as a category and 5 percent of the public goes there, versus 14 percent of scientists.
Given figures like these, Republicans might be tempted to just write off scientists as a source of votes and support. That would be a mistake. For one thing, the Republican Party has an image problem these days, often involving perceptions that the party is lacking in intellectual firepower. Being estranged from the scientific community exacerbates that perception. It makes it harder for Republicans to win the college-educated vote, where the party once had the edge, and winning elections without that edge has proven to be a difficult task indeed.
Moreover, Republican politicians need to have some scientists in their camp if they intend to govern competently when they do win elections and have to address science-related issues. Plus, looking more closely at the Pew data on scientists’ policy views, one sees that there are some opportunities for Republicans to build credibility with the scientific community without turning into liberals or assuming that science and liberalism necessarily come as a package.
Consider some figures from the Pew report: Among scientists, 84 percent think the Earth is getting warmer due to human activity, whereas 49 percent of the public thinks so. So far, so bad; the climate issue clearly has been a major source of tension between scientists and the GOP. But then we learn this: among scientists, 70 percent favor building more nuclear plants (compared to 51 percent of the general public). Is there not an issue there for Republicans to grasp? The Democratic Party is not going to be known for its pro-nuclear enthusiasm anytime soon. Republicans could be, but have been too busy undercutting the pro-nuclear case by denying that a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming exists.
Similarly, 93 percent of scientists favor the use of animals in scientific research, and 82 percent believe that all parents should be required to vaccinate their children. (The figures for the general public, respectively, are 52 percent and 69 percent.) It requires no great ideological leap for Republicans to point out that animal research, within ethical constraints, is needed (and that the most fervent opposition to it comes from the left), and to disassociate themselves from pseudoscientific anti-vaccination fear-mongering.
Republicans should align with the scientific community when they can, and disagree when they must but couch their disagreements in ways that suggest a respect for the scientific process. It may not turn a majority of scientists into Republicans, but from 6 percent there’s plenty of room for improvement.
63 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Jul 14, 2009 at 11:26 pm
FWIW, opposition to animal research might come “from the left” … but it is so far to the left that it actually has no say in the Democratic Party. If the Republicans could similarly marginalize climate change denialists into not having any political say (not to mention the anti-evolution crowd) they would make far more inroads with the scientific community than they ever will by advocating for other issues.
The problem is that those in the scientific community who believe in the anthropormorphic component of climate change believe it is the most important issue facing the world right now. And scientists regard resistance to evolutionary theory as simply an anti-scientific/anti-intellectual mindset that is totally oppositional to their belief structure. Kicking some dirt in PETA’s face isn’t going to do much to win them over.
2 dacookson // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:59 am
But reality has a well known liberal bias, are you ready to take that on board to appeal to these factanistas?
3 BoolaBoola // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:57 am
Well I’m not a scientist but I used to be a pretty scientific guy (created a new drug, my then-boss has a US patent to prove it, and I have a masters degree in physical chemistry and have worked in many many science and tech fields under very well-funded bosses (and a few not so well).
There are so many problems with the GOP in the scientific/high-tech community, I may have to fill several posts. Sorry David!
The poll shows problems from the GOP denying very-well-supported hypotheses, just a hair away from being proven facts, which almost all science-educated people agree on. A little less obvious is our disproportunate sensitivity to environmentalist-bashing generally. This is because of disproportunate awareness and understanding of big disasters like the coal-processing-sludge megaspill which significantly changed the map in Tennessee, and of stuff which is genuinely global-scale alarming, like the fact that pollenating bees appear to be in serious danger of getting extinguished by a new breed of mites. Anecdotes about environmentalist alarmists tend not to impress us, we’re used to alarmism about everything, scientists trying to make their work sound more immediately valuable than it is. Doesn’t mean it’s ALL alarmism.
Here’s a more specific big thing we won’t forget for a while: since Y2K the GOP and well-known “conservative spokesmen” have mocked, and campaigned against, fruit-fly work, which is all either basic genetics, for which fruit-flies are one of the most well-studied model organisms and which we all remember cross-breeding in bio lab, or, it’s entymology/plant-pathology, studying the effects of bugs on crops and food. You think that doesn’t matter??? Furthermore, conservatives have mocked another of the most important model organisms, the first organism whose nervous system was completely and exhaustively spacially mapped, every single nerve: the tiny worm c. elegans, which Rush Limbaugh spent some time giggling about, remember “It’s a worm!”
Most computer/electrical people are aware of Al Gore’s role in funding the precursors to the Internet (and other important work at the math-compsci interface, network models, graph theory, parallel processing etc) and understand that he did not say he had invented it.
We laughed at the “yellowcake” fuss; yellowcake is only a little different from freshly-mined ore.
The health-related aspects of science have been growing faster than any other area for decades now. Medical motivations have invaded fields which they used to spare–physics, even astrophysics (there’s a whole subspeciality of chemistry which studies formation of bio-building-blocks in stars and other far-from-earth environments). Everyone in science is health-care conscious, and conscious of the problem of limited resources. We tend to resent, for instance, Republicans scoffing at the idea of evidence-based medicine. When Republicans say “oooooh, RATIONING!” science people mostly know there’s gonna be rationing one way or another. You can’t give everyone everything they want in a hi-tech world. (In the 1970s and 80s this helped the GOP in the sci-tek community, on the welfare issue, and before the Right Man and the Right Congress dropped the ball on entitlements.) Hi-tekkers also disproportunately know that the “gummint-is-always-bad” slogan is garbage, because they understand that American science, and hi-tech leadership, depends on government and always has, at least since the 1920s (cars, roads). We also understand better than most people the penny-wise/pound-foolish aspects of status-quo health-care in USA. We are not concerned about having to wait for procedures which can be safely (if sometimes inconveniently or even painfully) delayed, which is most of them, particularly the ones mentioned most often in scare-stories like bypasses. Disproportunate numbers of us have heard stories from socialized-medicine countries like Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Israel, the Scandinavians, about getting severely injured, and treated (including physical therapy etc), without having to think about money AT ALL.
(If I were advising the Dems on health care, I’d tell them to start with comprehensive government protection from INJURY expenses. Go for illness later.)
Science people and hi-tech types generally tend to appreciate the patient, unhasty approach to things which seems to be one of President Obama’s outstanding characteristics and not one of McCain’s.
Hi-tech types tend to be skeptical about military spending and most skeptical about the missile-defense fantasy. In science everyone knows how to use “proof-of-principle” to deflect attention from great gaping critical flaws and unfulfilled assumptions and limitations of the meanings of models. We read about the “successful” tests and laugh ourselves silly.
We are very impressed with most of President Obama’s scientific appointments, particularly Steve Chu and Eric Lander, but also Collins and others.
Although we well understand the benefits of being the most hi-tech country, the scientific community is one of the most international communities on the planet and scientists tend to resent anything that smacks of nativism or knee-jerk scorn for other countries and cultures, as used so blatently by Rove et al. Many of us have worked with, or at least listened to, Muslims, and people stranger to us than Muslims.
This will be incomplete no matter how much I write, but maybe the most important thing is, when Republicans say “cut domestic spending” or in code, “cut taxes, and increase military spending” we all think of ourselves. There was a national gasp of relief when the Right Man announced he would be boosting, rather than cutting, NIH, FDA, USDA, NAS. (Compare Clinton, Obama.) We know that science is, in too many ways to discuss, shifting into high gear. The first half of the Twentieth Century was low gear, the second half was steadily increasing, and now we’re into the exponential, fast-and-getting-faster-forever stage, the computers accelerating the chemistry and the chemistry accelerating the computers, until we get to the point where the speed of light inhibits further increases in computer power and maybe even after that, the scientists improving on nature (google PG Schultz who is expanding the genetic code to include new amino acids you make in the lab, and teaching organisms to make those unnatural amino acids themselves, so you can set up controlled evolution to create new proteins which use the new amino acids to do new things and to do old things better). If we stop being the preferred place for science right now, well, just picture a USA where the preferred destination for scientific training and resume-building were China or Saudi Arabia, and people who had rotated there were in a higher league than those who had not, at all levels. With the sole exceptions of the Nobel Prize, the Rhodes Scholarship, and the journal Nature, USA is the place to be in science/hi-tech. In biomed research, NIH money is the most prestigious money there is, WORLDWIDE (foreign labs can apply for it). That means we know what everybody’s thinking about. If we drop the ball, regaining our position will be very much harder than gaining it was. Like, impossible, and today you fall behind orders of magnitude more quickly than a few years ago.
Almost forgot: the pro-nukism in the scientific community is just a little risky. How sure are you there won’t be another Chernobyl-scale event, or several, in countries with dysfunctional economies and/or corrupt oversight? Suppose there were two new events. People would start thinking about what happens to nukes when the country goes bankrupt. Not to mention, terror.
4 Dustin Ferrell // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:00 am
A couple of quick points:
1) I agree with balconesfault on the evolution deniers, though I *hope* this isn;t a significant faction of the right by this point.
2)Not accepting, by default, every conclusion on global warming is not “unscientific,” and is truer to the scientific method, and advancement of the debate, than blanket acceptance of every hypothesis.
3) This is unflattering for the right, but that does NOT make it flattering for the left. Both sides are largely driven by politics in their decision to accept or not to accept scientific consensus. Liberals and biology are often like oil and water. And I would classify proponents of late-term abortion as scientifically ignorant. Bottom line is that scientific discovery shatters a lot of myths on both sides.
4) I’m not all that impressed that scientists, many of them state funded, like a group that supports big government and blindly accepts findings that fit their agenda.
5 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:14 am
Evolution denial, global warming , stem cell research denial, constant attacks on scientific programs from volcano monitoring to fruit fly research, constant suppression and editing of scientific opinion when it is contrary to their ideology ……is it any wonder the GOP is totally alienated from the scientific community. Mr Silber needs to wake up the fact that scientists and the entire professional and managerial community for that matter operate on facts, empirical evidence and sound management practices. Ideology comes a poor second.
6 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:23 am
Dustin Ferrell // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:00 am
……….Gives us textbook summary of why scientists won’t be returning to the Republican party any time soon……even with the lure of nuclear power stations which I support btw
“This is unflattering for the right, but that does NOT make it flattering for the left.”
………..Actually it couldn’t get more flattering to the left as Silber points out: ” Throw in the scientists who are independents but lean toward a party, and the numbers change only modestly: the GOP figure goes up to 12 percent, while the Democrats get 81 percent.”
“I’m not all that impressed that scientists, many of them state funded, like a group that supports big government and blindly accepts findings that fit their agenda.”
………..Translation….. most scientists are state funded commies giving answers that their Democratic masters like.
7 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:23 am
Hey Ken,
Just a quick question:
Why no link to the actual poll?
Why no link to not just the poll results, but the questions and an outline of the methodology?
Anyway… just a pet bugaboo of mine; I’m big on citations.
Anyway… here’s what I’m talking about:
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf
You’re welcome. (*WINK*)
I just browsed the report myself and others with a background in survey research might want to do the same.
BILL
8 kensilber // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:52 am
Hey barker,
Thanks for the link. I actually included a link in the post as sent to NM, so your complaint here is really with the management. Readers who don’t want a PDF should start at
http://people-press.org/report/528/ and the political section is http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549.
Ken Silber
9 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:58 am
Re: Kensilber // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:52 am –
“…so your complaint here is really with the management.”
What else is new?!
(*GRIN*)
Hey… glad we’re on the same page, Ken. Thanks for replying so promptly! BTW… call me Bill.
BILL
10 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:33 am
Re: BoolaBoola // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:57 am –
A very well done, thought provoking post, BB. Thank you for sharing.
“…big disasters like the coal-processing-sludge megaspill which significantly changed the map in Tennessee…”
Never heard of it. (*SHRUG*)
Hey… not being a wiseass here – I’m “admitting” this in order to buttress your point, not dispute it.
“…pollenating bees appear to be in serious danger of getting extinguished by a new breed of mites.”
(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*) Well… I’m familiar with the bee population losses… didn’t know about the mites, though.
“…since Y2K the GOP and well-known “conservative spokesmen” have mocked, and campaigned against, fruit-fly work…”
It has…??? In what specific context? I mean, is all fruit-fly research equally important with NO project more about getting pork into a specific congressional district than about necessity with cost/benefit analysis taken into account?
Remember now, whether we’re talking fruit fly research or MILITARY PROCUREMENT, not every project or expenditure is worth funding. Again… while in theory one may argue ALL research is “good” in the sense that “something” might come of it, in the real world there are limited resources and one must chose how and where to spend money. (Well… at least when government is acting responsibly.)
“Republicans scoffing at the idea of evidence-based medicine.”
Huh…??? Hey… all I know is that when actual DOCTORS post here (Mike K. for instance) their notions and policy prescriptions seem to be way closer to my “conservative” views than “liberal” views. (*SHRUG*)
Anyway, BB, while I stick by my original contention that your post is well written and thought provoking, I must add that it’s also clearly politically partisan in nature and while on the one hand you start off by noting “Well I’m not a scientist…” you soon start peppering your post with “We” this and “we” that.
I’m curious, do you have a personal blog?
Just as you noted that you could fill several posts, I could spend the day deconstructing this particular post of yours and addressing your points one by one. I won’t… but I could. (*GRIN*) By the way, this too is a COMPLIMENT in the sense of you’ve written an extremely interesting essay here.
Anyway… again… I hope folks interested in this thread take the time to at least browse the actual Pew Report and check out the methodology and nuts and bolts components of said report.
BILL
11 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:50 am
“Huh…??? Hey… all I know is that when actual DOCTORS post here (Mike K. for instance) their notions and policy prescriptions seem to be way closer to my “conservative” views than “liberal” views. (*SHRUG*)”
Actually Mike K’s comments are usually rambling bs and he always promptly disappears whenever anyone who has a basic knowledge of the subject challenges him
12 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:56 am
Ken,
This piece is right on and I wholeheartedly agree. If the GOP becomes the science party, it could see its fortunes rise dramatically. Unfortunately it requires marginalization of evolution denialists and biblical literalists – a major shift for the GOP.
For a number of years I worked for the Department of Energy, which operates the largest complex of scientific laboratories in world. While not a scientist, I led, managed, and supported scientists. A predominate characteristic of the scientists was their complete lack of nationalistic and political interest. Their focus was and remains – doing science and getting money to do science. They ferociously defend their theories and call it as they see it. But more importantly, they work cooperatively across institutional and national boundaries. The last project I led was for a high energy particle accelerator and detector which required the cooperative effort of 11 nations and 77 institutions (including Russia, China, Italy, France, England, and others). You gain the support of scientists when you facilitate them doing what they do best – scientific research and when you recognize the results of that research instead of denying it. Science is not political.
Yes the GOP should align itself with science where it can, but just as important is when they don’t agree, they must disagree by not denying what is (proven) theory (vs hypothesis), rather because of other considerations such as risk, economics, and will of the people. Vaccinations contain some element of risk. However small, some parents are not willing to accept that risk. Regardless of the scientific evidence, should the government require mandatory vaccinations? Probably not, but not because its usefulness is denied but because it infringes on individual rights. The government can facilitate and encourage vaccination but stop short of requiring it. We may make the same argument for nuclear power – recognize its role in meeting our nation’s energy needs and managing the risk appropriately. There are many ways the GOP could become the science party. It can start by establishing a science-based platform. Unfortunately, my pessimistic view is that this will not happen because the party is controlled by literalists and denialists.
Excellent post Ken!
13 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:02 am
BTW, Pew Research Foundation is well respected in the government as is the National Academies and the Congressional Budget Office. When someone quotes Pew, NAS, or CBO I tend to pay more attention and treat it as an authoritative source. Maybe because they are generally apolitical.
14 The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Daily Must-Reads // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:08 am
[...] easy ways to make scientists more conservative (New Majority) StumbleUpon| Digg| Reddit| Twitter| [...]
15 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:11 am
On 20 June 2008, Gallup did a poll of Repubs and Dems on whether they accept Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:
Which comes closest to your views:
1) God created humans as is within last 10,000 years: Repubs 60%, Dems 38%
2) Humans evolved over millions of years, God guided: Repubs 32%, Dems 39%
3) Humans evolved over millions of years, God had no part: Repubs 4%, Dems 17%
60% of self-described Republicans accept the creationist theory that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The poll went on to ask how frequently these respondents went to church. The correlation was nearly perfect: The more times one attended church, the more likely he was to accept creationism. So this poll reflects the heavy influence that the Religious Right has in the GOP at this time.
The poll also found that the responses from self-described Independents closely matched the responses from Dems on this question. So the rejection of the Theory of Evolution is mostly an issue for Republicans.
What do scientists assert? The science is clear that Homo Sapiens first appeared on this planet somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. Scientists are virtually unanimous that Homo Sapiens evolved from earlier species of genus Homo, perhaps Homo Heidelbergensis.
Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Neanderthalis were both capable hunters and toolmakers. Homo Neanderthalis buried their dead in graves, just as we do. They would sometimes bury their dead with the tools and weapons the dead had used in life, hinting at honoring and grieving for the dead.
16 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:21 am
Scientific illiteracy is just another demographic issue.
Currently, the Deep South is the GOP’s firm base. But the Deep South hasn’t been pre-eminent in the sciences; just look at where the major university research labs and government research labs are located.
And up till now, the GOP has written off any voters with advanced degrees. Karl Rove said publicly that he believed that anyone with a Ph.D. belonged in the Dem Party anyway.
Appealing to science literacy and appealing to voters outside the GOP’s traditional base go hand in hand. Creationism isn’t going to appeal to voters in the Northeast or Pacific Northwest.
So we’re really discussing the wrong subject here. The right subject is how to convince the GOP base to stop huddling in their equivalent of Galt’s Gulch, and develop a “50 state strategy” to energize the GOP in places where now it’s almost extinct.
17 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:25 am
BoolaBoola asks: “How sure are you there won’t be another Chernobyl-scale event, or several, in countries with dysfunctional economies and/or corrupt oversight?”
So what? If such events occur, it’s the fault of those dysfunctional economies or corrrupt oversight, not the fault of nuclear power.
Dr. Hans Bethe had warned his Soviet counterparts not to build Chernobyl without a containment facility. They went ahead anyway, probably because of bureaucratic pressure.
If Chernobyl helped further crack the Soviet Union wide open, then it was worth the meltdown.
18 Dustin Ferrell // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:02 am
ottovbvs – excellent non-response.
So, to be clear, you don’t dispute the left’s problems with science, you just reiterate the right’s.
Not sure that Ken Silber seems inclined to care, either. Even though this is a forum for what’s wrong with the right, this seems to me a lie of omission.
The evolution deniers are low-hanging fruit, not sure why they keep coming up.
All that said, midcon’s third paragraph is an excellent synopsis. I would just like to see less self-flattery from the left.
19 kensilber // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:05 am
Dustin, I do care about the left’s disputes with scientists, and think that Republicans should be calling more attention to them; eg the nuclear power issue.
But if the 6 percent figure doesn’t cause some alarm and self-reflection on the right, I’m not sure what will.
Ken Silber
20 Dustin Ferrell // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:17 am
Ken – that makes sense to me. And the 6 percent scares the heck out of me, not just because of the scientists themselves, but public opinion among the highly educated who wonder, why only 6%?
I think we have the brains on our side, but unfortunately they aren’t able to shout over some of our more popular figureheads. As you say, the disagreement isn’t put in a way that shows respect for scientific progress.
21 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Dustin Ferrell sez: “The evolution deniers are low-hanging fruit, not sure why they keep coming up.”
Because they constitute 60% of Republicans, according to the Gallup Poll. The base of the GOP is dominated by creationists. That’s why.
22 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:53 pm
sinz,
I am a creationist. I just think it took 150000-200000 years and God (a greater power) did it by using evolution. I find it very difficult to believe in the accidental Home Sapiens. There is too much order in the universe for it to be truly random. I try to choose my words carefully, because I am definitely not a biblical literalist but I don’t find creationism to be at odds with scientific theory, but I do find it to be at odd with a literal reading of the Bible. However, I would not teach ceationism in schools because it is my belief and schools need to be a place for facts and science. Creationism (of the biblical literalist variety) should never be introduced in our education system that is paid for by public funds.
23 balconesfault // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“The evolution deniers are low-hanging fruit, not sure why they keep coming up.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXajXz4DF1w
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?_r=1&ex=1181448000&en=3bae160d7adc7889&ei=5070
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/12/gail-lowe-perry-picks-cre_n_230167.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131823.html
Assaults on evolutionary theory – some direct challenges, some backdoor via support of “creationism” – are not just ancillary issues for many leaders in the Republican Party. Rather, it’s central to their attack on the “elitism” of their Democratic opponents.
Here’s another hit. Attacking people as “elitists” doesn’t do much to attract the scientific community to your side. Scientists love having a beer at the end of the day as much as anyone, but they generally don’t base their peer reviews on whether they’d like to have a beer with the authors of an article.
24 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Re: Midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:53 pm –
Interesting…
I didn’t see that one coming!
Are you “mainstream” with regard to the earth’s age?
(I’m guessing you’ll answer “yes.”)
In any case, so… SINZ… I’m REALLY looking forward to your reponse to Mid’s latest post.
(*GRIN*)
BILL
25 Cforchange // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:12 pm
This entire topic also brings up big GOP hypocrisy #2 with morality and family values still holding the top spot at #1.
If as an individual you don’t appreciate, respect, support and encourage training for the sciences why then hypocritcally benefit from science at all? Skip using a microwave, a high efficiency furnace and most beneficial to a self – don’t use medical advancements. To compound the hypocrisy, the creationist team then further steps in to become the authority on what is ethically acceptable medical practice. While feeling righteous enough to declare what is ethically correct, the group also assumes the higher authority role in determining the who and how suffering should occur. Is anyone worthy of making a sweeping decision for humankind? I think not.
Sinz – right on w/ #’s 15 & 16. There’s the problem right there. I admit I was asleep while this undeniable transistion ocurred in the party. Must have been my days as a young republican in training – back in the dark days of martini lunches, happy hours and such. I totally missed the revival…
26 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Yep, I think the earth is older than dirt. And I believe in dinosaurs and one cell organisms and stuff like that. I also believe it is arrogant for humans (created by a God) to presume that a “day” as articulated in the bible would be the same for God. I mean really, how does presume that God’s time and our time can possibly be the same. For all we know, God’s day might have been 150,000 human years. Just think, the bible says He created everything in 6 days and we have chutzpah to think that it means a literal 6 humans days. Talk about human arrogance!
27 ryanbuck // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Ken,
Coming from a scientific background, I’m glad to see this being addressed. I’m a nuclear engineer and would consider myself liberal but party independent. I like the site and it’s goals.
You make an excellent point about the GOP being able to take the high ground on the nuclear power issue. Many GOP senators are already being vocal about funding cut for Yucca Mountain and asking the best question of “What scientific reasons do you have for discontinuing this project?”
Nuclear power can be used by the GOP to also leverage intellectual superiority on the energy issue in general. The GOP should be making scientifically based arguements on the behalf of it. Such as ” If nuclear power becomes a larger part of the overall electrical output pie, electric cars will have less of a carbon footprint.” or “Wind and solar are intermintent and can never sustain base load power”. Or argue for the economics and say that it’s a proven technology that will be cheaper than clean coal or CO2 capture. Quote the founder of Greenpeace who has left the group and been a vocal advocate for nuclear power.
The reasons for the scientific community are much, much broader issues. Supporting nuclear power is certainly not going to increase you up from 6% but it’s a start.
28 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:19 pm
midcon: According to the commonly accepted nomenclature, you are NOT a creationist. You are what is called a “theistic evolutionist.” You accept science’s discoveries on the age of the human race and of life on Earth, while also believing that God had a role in guiding the process.
Theistic evolution, which seems to be your view, is the view of mainstream Christianity, including Vatican scientists.
Creationism is the literal Biblical model of creation: That the entire Universe was created in six days; that Adam was created out of dust; that Eve was created out of Adam’s rib (why didn’t Eve get Adam’s Y chromosome?); and so on. Which means that dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden too. To illustrate, here’s a picture of Eve, riding on the back of a triceratops:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/images2/dino-eden_yell_bg.jpg
I don’t think this is what you believe.
29 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:25 pm
sinz, I stand corrected. From now on I will refer to myself properly – Theistic Evolutionist. That has a better ring to it anyway and I hate being lumped in with the thumpers! Thanks.
30 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:36 pm
ryanbuck, I worked on the Yucca Mountain project – when it was still a project. Unfortunately the nation’s hysterical response to all things nuclear remains an insurrmountable obstacle. Instead of a central repository, we have distributed nuclear waste in many states just sitting in pools. Ah well one day!
Little known fact time. As part of the licencing requirements the NRC demanded that the Civilian Radioactive Waste Program come up with a warning sign for Yucca Mountain that would last 25,000 years (radioactive decay time). One of the questions that had to be addressed in meeting that requirement was what symbology to employ considering that in 25,000 years we probably will not speak English. Now that was an effective use of taxpayer dolllars!
31 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Hey Sinz… how’bout you…??? Are you a… er… Theistic Evolutionist?
How’bout the rest of you folks?
Ken?
The rest of you – my fellow posters?
BILL
* Oh… almost forget! Yeah, put me down as a “TE.” (Though a shaky one in terms of “faith” that I’m right.)
32 kensilber // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Bill,
I’m an evolutionist, and personally don’t need the “theistic” qualifier though I don’t think evolution necessarily implies atheism either. I hope to write something about evolution at NM sometime.
Ken Silber
33 Dustin Ferrell // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I have to admit, sinz54, that link made my day
34 dacookson // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Does this mean the more well-informed you are the less likely you are to vote Republican? Of course it does. Basically the only people Republicans can get to believe in their policies are the super-rich and corporate elite, who have good reason to, and a bunch of people who’ll believe anything as long as you press the right buttons.
35 balconesfault // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I’m with Ken on this one. I believe in evolution, and I’m a theist, and while I can see how belief in God would certainly lead one to believe that God ‘designed’ the world as it is … I would add that it is unscientific if not anti-scientific to allege that evolution could not have proceeded via purely natural processes.
Midcon, I’m with you on the ludicrousness of our nuclear storage/disposal policies. I worked on the low level nuclear waste disposal project in West Texas during the 90’s – this program had been started under the Ann Richards administration as a project for disposing of low level wastes (think most everything but spent fuel rods), but was cancelled in the late 90’s under Bush, despite the state having spent a lot of money doing significant amounts of site design and prep (not to mention licensing). I’ve always believed it was sacrificed for Bush’s political futures, to give him cover from the stupid charge that would have been thrown against him for Texas having the only “Nuclear Waste Dump” as it would be called, no matter how well designed or necessary (just like the stupid charge that was thrown against him during the 2000 election that Texas was one of the major polluting states in the country – which is inevitable when three of the countries largest petrochemical complexes – Houston Ship Channel, Port Arthur, and Corpus Christi are in your state). It is appalling when politicians block critical programs not because of their own ideology, or because they believe we would be better with those things blocked – but out of sheer and crass political calculation.
That is the bind nuclear waste is in, and future feasibility of expanding nuclear in this country depends on someone cutting that gordian knot. But we seem to be having a shortage of politicians of courage from either party to help address it.
36 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Re: Dacookson // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:54 pm –
Hey Midcon… ya know how on the other thread you were saluting thoughtful and civil postings…???
(*GRIN*)
“Basically the only people Republicans can get to believe in their policies are the super-rich and corporate elite…”
I’d be thrilled if more of our fellow posters were SANE.
(*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
37 dacookson // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Isn’t that the bind Republicans are in though barker13? Evangelicals have begun to realise that the Republican blue bloods who have farmed their votes over the years aren’t going to ban abortion so they’re rooting for Palin come what may. Judging by the amount of posts by Frum on Palin, the other lot in the Republican party are pretty worried, probably because their policies, the extreme free market economic ones, have proved themselves to be deeply flawed and counter to the interests of the majority. So where to go from there? Where’s the appeal to the voters who’ve read some books, know some facts and are capable of critical thought? Frum will be a Democrat in two years I reckon. I thought my previous post was a fine, pithy piece of analysis.
38 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Well, remember we don’t live in a binary world. Not all posts are throughtful and civil. Still it is a welcome trend. Perhaps Dacookson would discuss which policies he is referring to instead of generalities but then every site has what I call “slogan posters” They use slogans instead of concrete thoughts and anlaysis. The SP’s usually have no thoughts of their own, so they use slogans they’ve heard or read somewhere in some polemic piece. Easy to spot – easy to ignore, unless one is in the mood for baiting, which I sometimes am.
39 barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Re: Midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:36 pm –
(*GRIN*)
Re: Dacookson // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:34 pm –
“Isn’t that the bind Republicans are in though barker13?”
(*DEEP BREATH*) (*STRAINED SMILE*)
OK, Dacookson, if the Evangelicals of the GOP are so toxic, how, when they were arguably an even more internally well-regarded faction of the GOP in years past, did this toxicity not lead to Democrats retaining Congress in ‘94, and (or) retaking Congress in ‘98, ‘00, ‘02, and ‘04.
How – assuming the “toxic Evangelical” argument is so self-evident did “born again” Bush win the presidency (yeah, yeah… Electoral College, not popular vote – but still) in 2000 and again in 2004?
Hey… Dacookson… in case you haven’t noticed, I’m not exactly Mr. Theocrat here. I attend Church for Christmas Eve Mass, once in awhile for Easter, if I can for the yearly 9/11 Mass, for weddings, baptisms, first communions, confirmations, and funerals. I’m pretty “pro science” – “pro science” enough to challenge the “faith” of global warming as preached by Pope Algore and his acolytes.
(*WINK*)
(Seriously… we’ve discussed Global Warming ad nauseum; the Goreites amongst you may seek to burn me at the stake as a heretic, but assuming the fanatics amongst you accept even the concept of a mainstream skeptic… then I’m about as “mainstream” as they come. But enough… I’ve given my specific views time and time again – it’s all in the archives.)
(Likewise, we’ve “debated” abortion time and again and as those who “keep score” may recall, I’m in no way a single issue – the issue being abortion – voter. In fact, as policy I certainly would not support any attempt to outlaw first term abortions for those adults seeking them.)
(Oh… and too refresh, since you seem intent upon trying to spread the tar pretty thick… if it were up to me Gay Marriage would be fine and dandy… as long, of course, as there’s a top shelf open bar reception to follow!)
Dacookson. I hope you’re capable of “getting” the point I’m making. Your “slogan posting” as Mid calls it achieves nothing but to cause reasonable people to roll their eyes. I mean, if your intent is to get a “hell yeah!” out of Otto… well… you’ll not doubt achieve your goal with such ridiculous rhetoric as that I pointed out you had engaged in. However… if you want to engage in SERIOUS discussion with REASONABLE people… well… don’t toss off asinine statements. (*SHRUG*)
Like Mid, I can ignore, I can bait… it all depends upon my mood. Hey… I know I can be as obnoxious as hell, but my “mean” side only comes out when someone is writing something so incredibly stupid that just reading it raises my blood pressure, or… when someone tries to pull a fast one… lies… deliberately distorts… engages in debate tactics I find dishonorable. Other than that, beyond any “stylistic” disputes others might have with me, I cite my sources, I don’t ask of others what I’m not willing to deliver myself, I’m honest and forthright, I don’t duck tough questions, and I’m sincere; if I write it… I believe it.
Not that you need me to lecture you… but just the same, you and a few other folks could do yourselves a huge favor by following that same basic path.
“Judging by the amount of posts by Frum on Palin…”
Yeah. But that reflects on FRUM. (*SHRUG*) (Anyway, he’s just trying to up his numbers – looking towards hopefully making money off the site in some manner in the future.)
“…the extreme free market economic ones…”
See. Right there. What do you MEAN by that statement? I mean Otto – clearly a liberal, clearly anti-conservative in the partisan sense – accuses me of being anti-capitalistic for questioning all the federal monies flowing through the hands of those fine plutocrats at Goldman Sachs and other such firms and companies favored by the elites of both Parties yet infer that you believe folks like me are “too” laisse faire in our approach.
(*SIGH*) Hey… perhaps I’m the true “moderate” here at NewMajority and you and Otto are the “extremists.” (*WINK*)
Finally… (*LAUGHING*)… I’d bet Otto’s last ill-gotten dollar that I read a hell of a lot more than you do. As for knowing facts and being capable of critical thought… (*SNORT*)… forgive the “religious” caution here, but you might wanna practice what you… er… preach.
(*GRIN*) (Com’on… that was cute…) (*SMILE*)
BILL
40 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:44 pm
barker13 asks: “Are you a… er… Theistic Evolutionist?”
I am a Deist, like a number of our Founding Fathers.
I believe in a Higher Power that created this Universe. And I believe our Universe has to have some purpose, even if we haven’t been able to figure it out.
But I don’t believe in miracles or revelation. I consider the story of Adam and Eve to be myth, not history.
To me, God created this Universe at the Big Bang, complete with matter and energy and the laws of physics. And then the Universe evolved on its own, until it could bring forth at least one species capable of comprehending God and His works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Many scientists, even atheists like Carl Sagan, believe that our Universe as it was constructed would lead inevitably to not one but many scientifically advanced civilizations throughout the Universe. So for God, waiting some 12 billion years for that to happen is just like you or me putting a frozen TV dinner in the microwave. You don’t interfere with it while it’s cooking; you wait patiently till it’s done.
41 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Dustin Ferrell // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:02 am
“ottovbvs – excellent non-response’
………..I was just pointing out two of the most glaring contradictions in your comment
42 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:57 pm
While creationism is a problem for Republicans, “New Age” nonsense and superstition are more of a problem for Democrats.
An Opinion Dynamics Poll taken in 2004 revealed the following:
“Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they believe in God (by eight percentage points), in heaven (by 10 points), in hell (by 15 points), and considerably more likely to believe in the devil (by 17 points). Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they believe in reincarnation (by 14 percentage points), in astrology (by 14 points), in ghosts (by eight points) and UFOs (by five points).”
The poll found that overall, 34% of Americans believe in ghosts (!!!), 34% believe in UFOs, and 24% believe in witches (!!!).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html
43 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:57 pm
kensilber // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“I don’t think evolution necessarily implies atheism either.”
………….I’m going to be very interested to see how you reconcile some of the central tenets of christian belief(like God creating the world in six days, virgin births, the holy trinity) with a belief in evolution.
44 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:01 pm
42 sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:57 pm
“While creationism is a problem for Republicans, “New Age” nonsense and superstition are more of a problem for Democrats.’
……………Oh yea Democrats all believe in superstitions (get those black cats outta here) and new age whatever that is……I thought it was a few not very attractive women in sandals……as far as I know it’s not a major issue in the Democratic party……some times people say the dumbest things
45 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Why Scientists Hate Republicans
July 15th, 2009 at 12:01 am by Kenneth Silber
……….And btw Mr Silber I’ve yet to meet a scientist who HATES Republicans……..they may consider them ignorant and incompetent as you suggest but that’s a totally different matter.
46 kensilber // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:06 pm
………….I’m going to be very interested to see how you reconcile some of the central tenets of christian belief(like God creating the world in six days, virgin births, the holy trinity) with a belief in evolution.
Someone else will have to reconcile those Christian tenets, ottovbvs. I don’t believe in any of them, though I’m told they can be taken metaphorically.
Ken Silber
47 midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:32 pm
sinz, Your example for deism of the tv dinner in the microwave is interesting. Do you find it impossible to believe that a supreme entity might like to do a little tinkering? What’s the fun in having an ant farm if you can’t give it shake now and again? That’s why I am theist I guess. I believe that an entity would do just that. Maybe just to make the ant farm more interesting but perhaps for purposes which we are currently unable to fathom. While I can accept a deistic hands off philosophy, I find a theistic hands on approach equally likely. But then, I’m just an ant.
48 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:44 pm
kensilber // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“Someone else will have to reconcile those Christian tenets, ottovbvs. I don’t believe in any of them, though I’m told they can be taken metaphorically.”
………..Then you’re taking the atheist (ie. unbelieving) or at very least agnostic position. There’s nothing very metaphorical about creating the world in six days.
49 dacookson // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:24 pm
barker13 why so upset? At no point to did I say that evangelicals are toxic. I think it’s clear that the evangelical movement in the Republican Party helped win the elections you mention, I never said otherwise. But there are these two strands running through the Republican Party that aren’t completely of one mind. Neither of them on their own has enough appeal to win the Presidency. If Sarah Palin were the Presidential nominee moderates wouldn’t vote for her and if you had two pro-choice candidates on the ticket evangelicals might not vote for them. The non-evangelical GOP brand of being good at wars and the economy is not in great health at the moment either. McCain tried a balancing act between the two and it failed. If evangelicals become the loudest voice in the GOP then it’s likely they’ll be unelectable. It also won’t be much fun for the others like Frum to be in a party that they think is being run by lunatics. I don’t think that’s an analysis out of left field.
I’m afraid I hadn’t noticed that you’re not Mr. Theocrat or that you held any of the views you mention. I don’t go through this site trying to figure out where all the commenters stand on all the issues. I respond to the articles and to people who engage me in a discussion on the comments thread. When I make general points I don’t think I have to make qualifications like ‘apart from Bill of course, and Patsy from Houston who think such-and-such’. I didn’t make any assumptions about your personal political views, you just thought I did. I suppose I should have put a third group in my original post of Republicans who aren’t evangelical or super-rich but haven’t quite thought it through.
I’ll admit that my posts were a bit of fun for me after a long day but I’ve written plenty of considered responses on this blog. I don’t expect you to have read them all because I’m not ego-centric. The little self-aggrandising speech about your blog ethics was very moving but doesn’t bear any relation to me.
Posting on Palin may well be a reflection on Frum but it also a real source of debate in the conservative blogosphere and within the party. To suggest that it isn’t a big issue is disingenuous. Looks like you may have broken one of your golden rules there. Ooops.
As far as economics go. I don’t care about your spat with Otto, I didn’t even know it existed. I don’t have to qualify my remarks with every nuance of every Republican’s belief when I’m making a general point. It’s nice that you don’t like bailouts but the only reason there is a bailout is because of the wanton unregulated casino that the financial sector became under the GOP (and to a lesser extent Clinton). To let the ship go down is too laissez faire. That’s the point. To have policies that lead to an economic meltdown and subsequent bailout is too laissez faire. Your argument against me doesn’t make any sense.
Which is why you must be the reading the wrong books. Try reading the ones that point out that Democrat Presidents are better at paying off debt and providing economic growth. At the end of the day 94% of scientists can’t all be wrong
50 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:33 am
Re: Dacookson // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:24 pm –
“Barker13 why so upset?”
Not “upset” precisely, Da. Just… er… frustrated I guess. (Thus the “deep breath” and “strained smile” earlier.) (*GRIN*)
(Also… and, hey, I admit it… every so often I tend to go into full pontificating lecture mode complete with perhaps a touch of heavy handed self-congratulation.) (*SMILE*) (Oh, well… humility was never one of my strengths…) (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
“At no point to did I say that evangelicals are toxic.”
(*HEAD DOWN*) Granted. (*GRIN*) (Hey… what can I say… I was on a roll!) But when you’re right you’re right… I concede my faux pas and beg your pardon.
“If Sarah Palin were the Presidential nominee moderates wouldn’t vote for her…”
It’s July 2009. Next presidential election… 2012. You stick with your crystal ball if need be; me, I find it unreasonable to even try to predict where Palin will stand in GOP esteem in 2011/12. Time will tell. We’ll see. (*SHRUG*)
“…if you had two pro-choice candidates on the ticket…”
I doubt that will happen. (Again, though… we’ll see.)
“The non-evangelical GOP brand of being good at wars and the economy is not in great health…”
Again. It’s July 2009. I suspect that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will pretty much destroy the liberal brand by the end of next year – let alone 2012. (We’ll see.)
“McCain…”
I’m sorry… just reading the man’s name raises my blood pressure. Mind if I skip down a few sentences?
(*SMILE*) (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)
“If evangelicals become the loudest voice in the GOP…”
They won’t. (*SHRUG*) That’s my prediction. We’ll see though.
“Frum…”
As Ronny would say… “There you go again…”
(*HEADING TO THE MEDICINE CABINET TO GRAB A COUPLE BABY ASPIRIN*)
“I’m afraid I hadn’t noticed that you’re not Mr. Theocrat…”
Think nothing of it. (*WINK*) Now you know.
“When I make general points…”
Let’s BOTH be serious for a moment, shall we? It’s not the “general points” I have a problem with. It’s asinine statements such as…
“Does this mean the more well-informed you are the less likely you are to vote Republican? Of course it does. Basically the only people Republicans can get to believe in their policies are the super-rich and corporate elite, who have good reason to, and a bunch of people who’ll believe anything as long as you press the right buttons.”
…which provoke me to get a bit… er… testy. (*SHRUG*)
“I didn’t make any assumptions about your personal political views, you just thought I did.”
Wrong on two counts. First, yes, I realize (and realized) that you weren’t attacking me personally. Second, as I’ve said – repeatedly now – the statement you made was asinine and offensive on it’s face. (*SHRUG*)
“I’ll admit that my posts were a bit of fun for me after a long day…”
I would hope so! (*GRIN*) Just as I have fun here! For what it’s worth, I enjoy your posts. It’s just… hey… if you’re gonna snark on folks (whether it’s me or others is immaterial) ya gotta expect to be snarked at right back. (*WINK*)
“…because I’m not ego-centric.”
Hey… try it! Perhaps you’ll like it! (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
“The little self-aggrandising speech about your blog ethics…”
Hey… (*STILL GRINNING*)… beat ya to the punch on that one, Da! I’m honest to a fault – including being willing to cop to my own… er… abundance of self regard. (*WINK*)
BUT, HEY… again… just because it’s self-aggrandizing doesn’t mean it’s not dead on accurate. (*SHRUG*) Further, again, I can’t stress strongly enough that any “advice” I offer is sincerely offered – to steal a line from Sinz, “my heart is in the right place.”
(Was it moving…??? That’s what I was going for!) (*SELF-DEPRECATING CHUCKLE*)
“Posting on Palin may well be a reflection on Frum…”
It is. He’s obsessed.
“To suggest that it isn’t a big issue is disingenuous.”
(*SNORT*) Nice try kid. (*SMILE*) Get it out… you’ll feel better!
No… seriously… it’s not “the Palin issue” but the multiple posts all while refusing to debate or even respond to the ideas and ideals of his own posters that gets under my skin. I’ve made that more than clear. (*SHRUG*)
(Hell… he just posted ANOTHER one… “Talking to Ourselves.”) (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
“As far as economics go. I don’t care about your spat with Otto…”
Fair enough. (*SHRUG*) Do you care about economics?
“I don’t have to qualify my remarks with every nuance of every Republican’s belief when I’m making a general point.”
No. But as previously mentioned, he who lives by the snark dies by the snark. Seriously… you’re the one being disingenuous. (*KNOWING SMILE*) But hey… we’re having a civil exchange here. No harm, no foul. Just don’t think this “general comment” thing is gonna fly in the face of your… er… general insult – aka “your asinine remark.” (*SMILE*)
“It’s nice that you don’t like bailouts…”
And YOUR position on the various bailouts is and was…???
“…the wanton unregulated casino that the financial sector became under the GOP…”
(*SIGH*) See… another asinine statement. Ya ever hear of Barney Frank? How’bout Chris Dodd? Robert Rubin? Jon Corzine? Leaving aside for the moment that the Dems took over control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress in January 2007, even in the minority it wasn’t as if they had no influence. Whether we’re talking Fannie… Freddie… derivatives… arbitrage… (hmm… something about the ’90’s… the Clinton years…) (*SMILE*)
Seriously. You sound like a partisan hack (a liberal Democrat partisan hack) when you finger the GOP as the Party which created the “casino” as you call it. Both Parties were (and still are) up to it in their necks.
Hell… you wanna go back to Enron? BOTH PARTIES were on the gravy train.
“To have policies that lead to an economic meltdown…”
My point is that the policies were largely “non-partisan” and can not and should not be labeled as “free market.” What we’re talking about is (and was) a “FIXED” market – a rigged market in one sense, a phantom market built upon false accounting and lies in another sense.
(At this point I’m not sure if we’re in disagreement; feel free to get back to me.) (*WINK*)
“Democrat Presidents are better at paying off debt…”
(*SIGH*) Jeez… standards sure have slipped.
Son. It is CONGRESS – not the President – which has “the power of the purse.”
(Jeez… they used to teach this stuff in Middle School…)
(*CHUCKLE*)
Anyway… overall not a bad effort at a retort. I trust you’ve got it out of your system. Sorry to have to embarrass you.
(I TAKE IT BACK…! I TAKE IT BACK…!) (*LAUGHING*) No… seriously… just digging the knife in with that last snark.
Chat with you again soon!
BILL
51 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:11 am
ottovbvs: FYI, there are many sincere savants who have thought about reconciling Christianity and the Theory of Evolution, and who have concluded that this is doable.
See, for example, the BioLogos website, sponsored by Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins is a well-known genetics scientist with dozens of published scientific papers. And he was just named by Obama to head the NIH. And he’s a devout Christian.
http://biologos.org/
Since I’m a Deist, I don’t really care. But it’s important for you not to have the last word on this. Many mainstream Christians have no problem with the Theory of Evolution. it would be a disaster for America, in which the vast majority are religious, if they were told that they had to give up their faith in order to accept science. That notion is by no means proven.
The Vatican accepts the Theory of Evolution. They just see it as the means of God’s creation.
And polls show that the percentage of Jews who accept the Theory of Evolution actually exceeds the percentage of atheists who accept it.
52 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:22 am
ottovbvs: That poll I cited indicates something that I’ve seen with my own eyes: Leftists are particularly sympathetic to all manner of “New Age” nonsense, including vegetarianism, naturopathy, astrology, Eastern mysticism, AmerIndian mysticism, and so on. Deepak Chopra and Khalil Ghibran are very Left-wing.
The Left is also allergic to nuclear power and were active in the ridiculous notion that electric power lines cause all manner of illnesses. And, sadly, it was the Left that popularized illicit drugs like LSD, remember? Timothy Leary was not a conservative. He really believed that hallucinogens helped you achieve a higher state of consciousness. Actually, what they did was destroy your ability to perceive correctly and reason correctly.
Honest liberals, like P.Z. Myers (cf. the Pharyngula blog) will admit this. He’s a confirmed atheist and absolutely ruthless on mysticism of all kinds. All kinds.
53 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:29 am
sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:11 am
” But it’s important for you not to have the last word on this.”
……….Why is it important?……..I’ve read some them starting with Gladstone’s(not all of it he was very loquacious)……..He was a friend of Darwin’s but devout CoE and immediately tried to square the circle but it’s not very convincing……..I don’t question their sincerity just their logic….essentially they are all rationalizations that allow people to hang onto their christian beliefs while not denying irrefutable evolutionary theories………..It does no harm particularly since faith is or should be a entirely personal matter…..a bit like sex…….it’s certainly not a matter of polls……and I’m sure the Vatican has a Jesuitical rationalization
54 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:38 am
sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:22 am
“ottovbvs: That poll I cited indicates something that I’ve seen with my own eyes: Leftists are particularly sympathetic to all manner of “New Age” nonsense,”
…….There’s evidence fringe rightists are sympathetic to Nazism…..Pat Buchanan frequently expresses quasi Nazi beliefs….I do not extrapolate from this that all conservatives are therefore Nazis I like steak but the suggestion that Vegetarianism is an exclusively left wing belief is even more fatuous…….Hitler was one…I believe Mort Zuckerman is one too…….
55 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:05 am
ottovbs: I never said those beliefs were “exclusively” left-wing. Christianity isn’t “exclusively” right-wing either (cf. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Berrigan brothers).
But that Opinion Dynamics poll showed that some one-third of self-described Democrats believe in astrology and reincarnation, indicating a strong bias toward Eastern mysticism. I lived through the 1960s, when Eastern mysticism and African mysticism was becoming popular among the young counterculture and black rebels. Evidently, 40 years later, they never outgrew it.
That’s not something that Dems can be proud of. Though it’s not as bad as having 60% of Repubs who believe in creationism.
56 dacookson // Jul 16, 2009 at 11:45 am
Hold on sinz54, you’re equating creationism with vegetarianism?
Being a vegetarian doesn’t involve irrational beliefs about vegetables, it’s a choice not to eat meat.
Anyway Bill, my comments were teasing as you say but I stand by the underlying point. I’m sure we’ll pick this up later on other threads. For the record on bailouts, I think you have to bailout under certain conditions but there have to be consequences. I don’t think we’ve seen enough consequences.
57 balconesfault // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:05 pm
sinz: “But that Opinion Dynamics poll showed that some one-third of self-described Democrats believe in astrology and reincarnation, indicating a strong bias toward Eastern mysticism. I lived through the 1960s, when Eastern mysticism and African mysticism was becoming popular among the young counterculture and black rebels. Evidently, 40 years later, they never outgrew it.
That’s not something that Dems can be proud of. Though it’s not as bad as having 60% of Repubs who believe in creationism.”
Well, first off, fortunately, while mysticism infiltrates pop culture and the like, I’ve never heard of someone claiming it as a basis for selecting national political candidates, or for justifying a major policy initiative. I will gladly respond with a resounding guffaw if anyone does, the same way I mock people using Christianity as a justification for a legislative initiative or a ballot box decision.
Second, I see astrology and reincarnation as two very separate things. No, I don’t believe in either one, and yes, I’m very glad that in contrast with creationism, nobody is arguing they should be taught in our public schools.
But belief in astrology is even more ignorant than creationism, if that’s possible. While belief in reincarnation is on a plain with belief in heaven and hell, or in God him/her/itself.
58 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:03 pm
sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:05 am
………..I wonder about your value judgement system sometimes……..New ageism is of zero importance as a factor in Democratic politics……..You might as well say 30% of democrats approve of Rogers and Hammerstein musicals…..it wouldn’t mean they were a factor in Democratic politics……Whereas religiosity is a major factor in Republican politics…..neither apparently do you regard drug taking as a moral failing……I find this imaginary identification of democrats even more odd in the light of the fact that Republican president Reagan and his wife used to consult astrologers…..perhaps you believe Obama gets the ju ju man in once a week
59 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Re: Dacookson // Jul 16, 2009 at 11:45 am –
(*HANDSHAKE*)
BILL
60 BoolaBoola // Jul 17, 2009 at 12:39 am
Barker13, sorry, just read your comment. Yes, my VERY ANGRY, mostly partisan but not partisan in principle, personal blog is AICH TEE TEE PEA://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com
And while I am not a scientist, I earned my living for some years making bioreagents (antibodies) FOR scientists, including some of the best in the world. My work has generated several PhDs, just not one for me. I have done technician-level work in more different fields of science than most people could name. (Technicians are the real scientists. They do the experiments. The “scientists” are figureheads and fundraisers. There are exceptions–PhD-level people who do experiments–but not very many. Grad students put dummy-controls on their instruments and label them “Supervisor Only”.) I have written a successful grant proposal for NIH training money (vewy vewy pwestigious) for an MD/PhD combined degree (writing it was easier than doing it….). Now I do scientific tutoring and writing. So I am a member of the magical community although no longer practicing magic my own self.
61 BoolaBoola // Jul 17, 2009 at 12:53 am
Sinz, you wrote that nuclear disasters in economically dysfunctional economies &/or under corrupt oversight wouldn’t matter because the fault would not be nuclear power but the above complaints.
You seem awfully sure that we will never have a dysfunctional ecomony nor corrupt oversight in USA. Maybe you could explain why you are so sure? I’m not.
I’m not talking about abstract nuclear power. I’m talking about the responses of the scientific community to the question whether or not WE should BUILD more nukes. Right now, only two big events are generally known–Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island. What if there were five, including three recent ones, including one caused by terror? Sure, there’d probably still be more support for nukes among scientists than among the public, but it wouldn’t be no seventy percent nohow.
62 barker13 // Jul 20, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Re: BoolaBoola // Jul 17, 2009 at 12:39 am –
Thanks for providing your blog address.
In case you have any interest, my blog can be found at usalyright.blogspot.com
“The “scientists” are figureheads and fundraisers.”
No scientists, no science! No science, no science technicians! (*GRIN*)
“…(vewy vewy pwestigious)…”
(*WINK*) Thank you… thank you… thank you!!! Too many people who blog have no frigg’n sense of humor whatsoever. Anytime you can make someone smile it’s a victory of all of mankind!
Hey… thanks for responding and sharing a bit of your background. I look forward to chatting with you in the future.
BILL
63 barker13 // Jul 20, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Re: BoolaBoola // Jul 17, 2009 at 12:53 am –
Speaking for me, myself, and I… the three of us all vote for nuclear power. LOTS of nuclear power!
As to the risks… according to “our” cost/benefit analysis they’re easily within the acceptable range.
(*WINK*)
BILL
You must log in to post a comment.