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

[UncleBuck]

Opposing view on such a committee are beneficial imo. They challenge the popular belief.

ummm, what?

thinking that rape can lead to pregnancy is simply "the popular belief"?



thinking that child birth can result in death to the mother is just "the popular belief"?



sorry, that's not "popular belief". that's scientific fact. deal with it.

 

[Carthoris]

There is a clear difference between challenging and denial. To say evolution is a lie is not a challenge, it's a display of scientific ignorance. This is not something we expect from someone on a science committee.

If I tell a doctor that putting a cast on a broken bone is a waste of time, am I challenging him, or just being ignorant?

It depends on the situation. I have had broken bones that I didn't need a cast on. Things aren't so clear cut most of the time.

 

[Carthoris]

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.” -Todd Akin rep. Missouri

"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior." -Paul Broun rep. Georgia

Broun also believes "the Earth is no more than 9,000 years old".

(both of these men are on the US house committee on science, space and technology)

Context;

"If the life of the mother was at risk, would you say she should be allowed to have an abortion?" -reporter

"Let me briefly say, there is no such exception with modern technology and science, you can't find one instance. This is an issue that opponents of life throw out there to make us look unreasonable. There's no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing." -Joe Walsh rep. Illinois


Why do we allow people like this to be making scientific decisions that affect the whole nation if they don't accept science?

The same could be said of Global Warming activists. Global warming is a theory, not fact. Global warming may or may not exist, yet people want to make entire policies around it. Take the issues of economics. They are all theories with no proof that they work or do not work except logic. Neither side bothers with that though, they just repeat things like parrots until people accept it.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Doc,
Rennet itself is totally vegan, 99.9% of all American rennet is macrobial,no animal involved. But,anyway,I make cheese using nuts,nutritional yeast and tapioca starch and/or arrowroot.If I want it harder than those horse dicks you jerk,xantham gum too

 

[Carthoris]

1. To my knowledge Romney did not say he would overturn Roe v. Wade if he becomes President. He said he wants the courts to.

2. Contrary to liberal spin, overturning Roe v. Wade does not outlaw abortion.

3. I once blamed Republicans for being ignorant to facts regarding things like evolution, but I have been surprised to find out many are not that way. Most recently Boortz called for him to step down from the science committee for the exact reasons you listed (he also believes in evolution). Goes to show that you can't judge a book by its cover and that collectivism is ignorance.

It is also is important to point out that Roe vs Wade does not legalize abortion per say. It still gives the states the right to ban it if the fetus is 'viable'. Right now, they are banning abortion after 20 weeks in many states. The window will continue to shrink as technology lowers the 'viability' age. Abortion will cease to exist in the coming decades. Killing the fetus isn't the goal of abortion anyway, it is simply removing it from the mother. Eviction will become the de facto law in our lifetimes.

 

[Carthoris]

Evolution explains how life changes over time. It makes no attempts to explain how life began. If evolution is a lie, it is one that mother nature herself is engaged in. Evolution is simply an explanation of the evidence we find when we go looking.

Science is not a democracy. We do not favor evolution theory simply because it has 51% of the vote. We favor it because it has stood up to 150 years of rigorous attempts to falsify it. It is not meant to be taken as fact. The work is there for you to review. The process is completely transparent. No one is hiding the theory or asking you to blindly accept it.

Science is democracy. If enough people accept the theory you simply mock the rest into submission. Majority rules. It has always been this way, unless you think things have drastically changed in the last 20 years or something. Evolution and Creationism can exist together, they are not mutually exclusive unless you stick to some timeline that says the world is 9000 years old. Evolution could very well be the hand of God if he exists. It is hard to say how an omnipotent being would create things.

 

[UncleBuck]

Science is democracy. If enough people accept the theory you simply mock the rest into submission. Majority rules. It has always been this way, unless you think things have drastically changed in the last 20 years or something. Evolution and Creationism can exist together, they are not mutually exclusive unless you stick to some timeline that says the world is 9000 years old. Evolution could very well be the hand of God if he exists. It is hard to say how an omnipotent being would create things.

science is not democracy.

a single counterexample can put a hole in an otherwise widely accepted theory.

you have the republican view of science. no wonder you deny the overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change. even the people the koch brothers were paying to deny it for them had to admit we have a hand in it.

you anti-science republicans make me sick.

 

[Carthoris]

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.



Evolution is a fact. Anyone who understands it accepts it. Those that don't, don't understand it, and it's as simple as that. Their beliefs conflict with it so they decide to discard it as psuedoscience. Unfortunately they contend with 99% of the scientific community who accepts it as fact.

Are 99% (more than 100,000 scientists worldwide) of those that accept it conspiring against.

Have you even ever read Roe vs Wade? There is no 28 week limit, it was mentioned, but not a definition. They also mentioned 24 weeks, but it was not a definition of 'viability'. The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid". Viability will continue to become sooner and sooner until abortion can be outright banned by state governments. I believe the count is 10 states that ban abortion past 20 weeks, with another 7 considering going with 20 weeks. This will continue to erode until abortion is regulated out of existence but not illegal in much of the country. Eviction will become customary in the future. I think at this point, pro-choice and pro-life will become a very blurred line.

 

[Carthoris]

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.

The fact that you keep calling evolution a theory and a fact at the same time shows that you really don't understand what theory and fact mean. You might want to brush up on that. Once something becomes a fact, it is no longer a theory. A theory could be a fact, but it isn't provable as fact, that is why they call it a theory.

 

[cannabineer]

but american firms profit from the research done by nazis in their deathcamps, and sell the results of that research like it's made of sunshine and rainbows. i hated ritalin, it made me zombified.
have you tried dextromethorphan? ritalin made me robo-trip rather like that. the doctors put me in a bottomless K-hole for like 5 years just cuz i was rambunctious.

im not sure why since im no bio-chemist, but ritalin actually works as a sedative on those who actually have "adhd". 10mg put me in a stupor, but my pals got wired on the shit.

I have actually. I adore K but cannot stand DXM. The three days' comedown reliably put me in a frankly suicidal space.
As for Ritalin, it did almost nothing to/for me. cn

 

[Carthoris]

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.

Yep, George Washington wasn't the first president, and the United States murdered 9 million Germans after WW2. I really wonder about a history class that doesn't even bring up these facts, or at least have a conversation about them so the students can make up their own mind.

I was led to believe the Federal Reserve was the US bank ran by the government in school on the occasion or two it was mentioned in passing.

 

[Carthoris]

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

If a theory changes itself, it is not longer the same theory. If Nazi's suddenly decided that whatever the Democrats were doing was the right thing to do, would they still be Nazi's? No, they would be Democrats, and that would be a new theory for them. Get it?

 

[FreedomWorks]

Socialists now identify themselves as solid democrats.

 

[ginjawarrior]

but american firms profit from the research done by nazis in their deathcamps, and sell the results of that research like it's made of sunshine and rainbows. i hated ritalin, it made me zombified.
have you tried dextromethorphan? ritalin made me robo-trip rather like that. the doctors put me in a bottomless K-hole for like 5 years just cuz i was rambunctious.

im not sure why since im no bio-chemist, but ritalin actually works as a sedative on those who actually have "adhd". 10mg put me in a stupor, but my pals got wired on the shit.

how old are you? i was diagnosed as "hyperactive" in my youth but treatment back then was little more than a suggestion to stay away from e numbers and many years of teachers thinking i was a little shit

as a grown uup every k-hole i've had stuck my face to the floor for the duration

 

[cannabineer]

If a theory changes itself, it is not longer the same theory. If Nazi's suddenly decided that whatever the Democrats were doing was the right thing to do, would they still be Nazi's? No, they would be Democrats, and that would be a new theory for them. Get it?

There is a distinction between scientific theory and sociopolitical ideology. cn

 

[Carthoris]

As I mentioned before, he's said it's up to the SC, whom he would most likely appoint during his administration. Do you think he would appoint liberal justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade or conservative justices who would overturn it?

He himself disagrees with the ruling and has said so in a few interviews.



Could you be specific and cite a few examples?

The ruling was incorrect because it wasn't based on constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Whether it is the right thing or not isn't the decision of the court, legality is. The pro side said that it was the right to privacy as their reason for their finding.

 

[UncleBuck]

Socialists now identify themselves as solid democrats.

and ignorant blatherskites start sock puppet accounts.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Cathorsis,
What you say is what I've been trying to tell them for pages now. Evolution is a lie, or evolution isn't Darwin's theory of species. But damn liberals like to pretend both are true so not to look like fools.You make mistakes,but they won't admit

 

[Carthoris]

Precisely no. This is the Lamarckian counterproposal to Darwin, and it has failed every test. Since the Lamarckian idea appeals to many of us intuitively ... it's been subject to much test. cn

A theory failing a test does not mean it is incorrect.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Doc,
Rennet itself is totally vegan, 99.9% of all American rennet is macrobial,no animal involved. But,anyway,I make cheese using nuts,nutritional yeast and tapioca starch and/or arrowroot.If I want it harder than those horse dicks you jerk,xantham gum too

ohh bunny... dont buy farmer's cheeses or "100% natural organic" cheese unless it is also marked vegan.

we do still use rennet, the synthetic rennet substitutes are falling out of favour due to their "artificial" nature and the need to ensure that everything is "organic"

exercise caution in the dairy aisle