Why don't Republican officials accept science? 3 examples..

[Padawanbater2]

Evolution as proposed by Darwin, is false. DNA isn't the only factor. There are extra genetic factors which get passed on from environmental conditions, learning. Panspermia can rapidly mutate. Evlolution isn't the only answer and definitely not fact.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Denying it at this point is like denying the theory of gravity.

It's difficult to have a serious conversation with an evolution denier, just like it would be with a Holocaust denier. One in the same.

Why don't you accept it as scientific fact? Do you understand it? Be honest.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Darwin knew there was some sort of "genetic" factor which caused heredity.He made up evolution to combat ideas ,like Lemark, said a giraff keeps reaching his neck it gets longer.Until a decade ago no one used Lemark.Darwin's evolution is incomplete.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I understand evolution and it's incomplete. You can't add to Darwin's theory and still call it evolution. IMO,it should be renamed to the theory of life changes.Evolution assumes a closed system. Life a open system and is also influenced from outside Earth

 

[Padawanbater2]

Darwin knew there was some sort of "genetic" factor which caused heredity.He made up evolution to combat ideas ,like Lemark, said a giraff keeps reaching his neck it gets longer.Until a decade ago no one used Lemark.Darwin's evolution is incomplete.

Why would you expect a mans theory of over 120 years to be complete? Why would you hold the standard as such?

A hundred years later, with century old evidence to confirm his findings, why do you still hold his 1800's data to a different standard of millennial old?

Evolution is a scientific fact, what evidence do you have to the contrary?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I understand evolution and it's incomplete. You can't add to Darwin's theory and still call it evolution. IMO,it should be renamed to the theory of life changes.Evolution assumes a closed system. Life a open system and is also influenced from outside Earth

The theory of evolution utilizes environmental influences, it is in fact one of the key aspects to prove it's validity. Organisms adapt to their environment. Those that don't get weeded out, those that do become stronger. Where is the misunderstanding? Darwin himself outlined this.

 

[Slipon]

3 quotes from Albert:

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.


What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism

Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.


​

 

[sync0s]

Can you tell me what the difference is? He said he'll appoint justices who will overturn the case.

What does overturning Roe v. Wade do? Limit the amount of time an abortion can legally take place? Limit the current 28 week limit to something less?

Most GOP politicians are steadfast against accepted science, including evolution and stem cell technology. Anything that conflicts with the biblical account of reality.

The difference he doesn't claim dictatorial powers on the matter. A trait that is often missing on the left.

Overturning the decision returns the debate to where it belongs both morally and constitutionally: to the States.

Most.. not all. Does not warrant the attack on the entire class. That is just a perpetuation of ignorant smear campaigns.

 

[Padawanbater2]

3 quotes from Albert:

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism

Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.​

Argument from authority.


​

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

Lets not forget this...

Here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

texas board of education has been trimming down its quality of education for years

 

[Padawanbater2]

The difference he doesn't claim dictatorial powers on the matter. A trait that is often missing on the left.

Overturning the decision returns the debate to where it belongs both morally and constitutionally: to the States.

Most.. not all. Does not warrant the attack on the entire class. That is just a perpetuation of ignorant smear campaigns.

Appointing SC judges solely on the intent of bowing at his will certainly seems dictatorial to me..

To the states, just like MMJ is "up to the states"? (more DEA convictions than the Bush administration with the campaign promise of "we will not go after medicinal patients who abide by the law!"?

Can you name one, or a couple GOP elected officials who hold accepted science in higher regard than their own personal religious beliefs? I listed 3 who oppose it in the OP, surely you can list 3 that are on board with accepted scientific findings?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

In my high school biology book it claimed Lemarkian type heredity was utter stupidity and evolution proved it false. Until a decade ago, no one denied this. Now some parts of Lamark are found true but weren't studied seriously because evolution is FACT.

 

[Dr Kynes]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

Lets not forget this...

Here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Outcome Based Education was a hot buzzword in the 80's, it was in fact NOT a well rounded liberal arts education for the students, it was "teaching to the test" with rote memorization of "facts" like:

the civil war was all about slavery. end of subject.
the US government deliberately infected blankets with smallpox and gave them to the native americans on the reservations.
theodore roosevelt and the rough riders took san juan hill
"marijuana" is deadly poison, and a highly addictive drug.
6 million jews died in the holocaust.
the US is a democracy

and lots more, all of which are factually incorrect, yet still taught to this day. last year i helped my nephew with his summer schoolwork while he stayed with me over the summer, and his coursework was LAUGHABLE.

heres a little sample: this is the exact question and the multiple choice answers as offered on his final exam:

Question 16
The text of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's speech, where he declared that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" is an example of:

A: a primary source
B: a secondary source
C: a biliography
D: an appendix

the correct answer is B, a secondary source. ORLY????????????
the entire course of study was laden with incorrect assertions like that, and it was lauded as one of the best online self study programs in america. they even misquoted shakespear plays and langston hughes poems.

the texas school board may have laid out their opposition in a buffleheaded and inarticulate manner, but OBE, HOTS and all the new hotness in education reform are all flawed at their core. they teach agendas, memorization and blind acceptance of the assertions of the coursework. they call themselves "critical thinking education" but they are not.

for fuck's sake one part of the course had him watching zit cream commercials with justin bieber to gain insight into "Critical Media Consumption" which was the actual title of that section, yet it did not offer any assistance in critical thinking or questioning the assertions of the "media" he was instructed to "consume" it merely helped him see that justin bieber sold a shitload of zit cream, and after the section was complete, i asked him what he learned from this portion of his course, he answered "justin bieber is a fag" so i guess he learned something in spite of it all.

the texas school board is sadly RIGHT, just for the wrong reasons. education SHOULD challenge beliefs, and as a result it MUST undermine the unswerving faith a child should have in his parents when he is young, in favour of understanding and logic. OBE and HOTS do NOT do that they simply replace mommy and daddy's "because i said so" with the school curriculum's "because i said so". and thats why they suck.

 

[Heisenberg]

I understand evolution and it's incomplete. You can't add to Darwin's theory and still call it evolution. IMO,it should be renamed to the theory of life changes.Evolution assumes a closed system. Life a open system and is also influenced from outside Earth

So now it's not a lie, it's just incomplete? It seems you haven't put much thought into this. You are not even sure how you feel. As I said, you have a strange caricature of evolution in your head that does not reflect the actual theory, and you are arguing against that. You think scientist ignore environmental factors? You think evolution assumes a closed system?

You think you know, but you only know what you think.

 

[sync0s]

Padawanbater2: cleanup your post. Kind of confusing

As far as MJ laws go there is a much bigger problem there. Just join me in my quest to abolish all laws passed in 1913.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Padwan,
How can you claim evolution as fact when you yourself state that incomplete knowledge doesn't disprove. But did that stop scientists from claiming Lemark was 100% false? If they're wrong about that, what else is wrong about fact evolution?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

evolution is fact, why and how it happens and what influences it are whats up for debate

 

[sync0s]

Padwan,
How can you claim evolution as fact when you yourself state that incomplete knowledge doesn't disprove. But did that stop scientists from claiming Lemark was 100% false? If they're wrong about that, what else is wrong about fact evolution?

You reference a high school textbook as quotes from scientists? Have you forgotten how corrupt gov education is?

 

[Slipon]

do one exclude the other ?

I mean if there is a God who made it all, wouldn't he have made it in a "logic" way ..

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Heisenberg,
It is a lie. Evolution purports itself as the truth. But how is it truth when you must admit Lemark was partly right and evolution made a mistake? Evolution is a guess. It is vague. When it gets things wrong, woops. Then states, there fixed.

 

[Heisenberg]

Heisenberg,
It is a lie. Evolution purports itself as the truth. But how is it truth when you must admit Lemark was partly right and evolution made a mistake? Evolution is a guess. It is vague. When it gets things wrong, woops. Then states, there fixed.

Your criticism of evolution is that it changes it's mind when it's appropriate to do so? You prefer a theory which never updates itself according to new information? All scientific answers are an approximation of the truth based on the evidence at hand, and always come with error bars at the end. Anything else would be arrogant and disingenuous. Again, you don't seem to have put much thought into this.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." -Carl Sagan