What is it with conservatism and science?

[Moreau Catholic High]

Often I will turn on the news or poke around youtube, and I end up seeing another conservative saying things like, "Global warming is a hoax"*, or "We should teach creationism along with evolution". Not to mention that back then there were those denied cigarettes caused lung cancer.

Now, I'm not saying all conservatives are all science denying nutjobs. Neither am I saying that the left doesn't have its wackos (see some conspiracy theorists and Code Pink). I'm just curious why does it seem like conservatism seems to generate more people who oppose mainstream science?

*If you must argue with this, do it in another thread. This isn't the point of this topic.

[Ferrous Oxide]

It doesn't. America generates people who oppose mainstream science.

[Lizardiar]

I think you should change your question to "Why do people question me when I say they are wrong?"

[Bears Armed]

Presumably you are referring specifically to "conservatives" in the USA?

[Conserative Morality]

It doesn't. America generates people who oppose mainstream science.

The USA has the best of everything. Unfortunately, this includes the best idiots, the best nutjobs, and the best depressions/recessions.

[Moreau Catholic High]

Presumably you are referring specifically to "conservatives" in the USA?

Mostly, yes.

[Moreau Catholic High]

I think you should change your question to "Why do people question me when I say they are wrong?"

I ask this question because I have evidence, and they don't.

[Lizardiar]

I think you should change your question to "Why do people question me when I say they are wrong?"

I ask this question because I have evidence, and they don't.

I guess you are going to say "Faith isn't evidence, your wrong, I'm right. So why are you saying I'm wrong?"

[Intangelon]

I think you should change your question to "Why do people question me when I say they are wrong?"

Wow, that was uncalled for. Are you trying to pick a fight here?

[Moreau Catholic High]

I think you should change your question to "Why do people question me when I say they are wrong?"

I ask this question because I have evidence, and they don't.

I guess you are going to say "Faith isn't evidence, your wrong, I'm right. So why are you saying I'm wrong?"

Mostly, yes.

[Intangelon]

I ask this question because I have evidence, and they don't.

I guess you are going to say "Faith isn't evidence, your wrong, I'm right. So why are you saying I'm wrong?"

Ignore my post before this one. I have my answer.

[Moreau Catholic High]

I'm not saying it's strange, what I'm saying it's strange that people will argue for something despite all evidence to the contrary that they are incorrect.

[Lizardiar]

Why does it seem strange to you that people argue and fight for what they believe in? Also, do you have evidence that what they believe in isn't there? They can't prove it is and you can't prove it isn't.

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps because science is about facts, about understanding reality, while so much of conservative belief relies on deluding oneself about reality.

[Lizardiar]

Perhaps because science is about facts, about understanding reality, while so much of conservative belief relies on deluding oneself about reality.

How do you know what they say isn't true?

[Moreau Catholic High]

I have a feeling we've wandered into creationism vs. evolution. Ok, I'll address it.

First thing I need to make clear is that evolution doesn't mean that there is no God. It simply means God didn't magic everything into existence. I see no reason why it can't be said God used the process of evolution to produce the diversity of life on earth. This is what I believe.

As for the physical evidence for evolution, please examine the fossil record, demonstrated experiments, numerous recorded instances of speciation, homology, and DNA evidence.

I don't find it odd that people will argue for their beliefs. I find it odd that people will argue for positions that have been proven wrong beyond all reasonable dobut.

[Khadgar]

American conservatives, and they do not deserve that name in the slightest, despise not necessarily science, but education. There's a correlation between education and political leanings. The more educated you are the more liberal you tend to be.

Can't have those damn liberals getting ahead in demographics. The intelligent design bullshit happens to please their anti-education bent and their religious psycho base.

[Lizardiar]

But some Liberals want only certain material to be taught "inoffensive material." and also I too believe that God gave man and animals the ability to adapt and evolve to survive.

[Brutanion]

Often I will turn on the news or poke around youtube, and I end up seeing another conservative saying things like, "Global warming is a hoax"*, or "We should teach creationism along with evolution". Not to mention that back then there were those denied cigarettes caused lung cancer.

Now, I'm not saying all conservatives are all science denying nutjobs. Neither am I saying that the left doesn't have its wackos (see some conspiracy theorists and Code Pink). I'm just curious why does it seem like conservatism seems to generate more people who oppose mainstream science?

*If you must argue with this, do it in another thread. This isn't the point of this topic.

Basically because the Left has nothing to gain from such claims. I point out as well that the Right and Conservatives are not necessarily the same thing, although they historically have been synonymous enough. For instance, Winston Churchill was right wing and conservative, but Thatcher sought to undermine established British methods, so she was right wing but radical.
Splitting the Right into three separate groups we have:
Big businessmen and their supporters
The Religious (often fundamentalist) Right
The rest of the Right

Group 1 knows that if anything is causing global warming then it is big business, their main interest, so they deny it either actively or through ignorance. These are liable to use phony science to back themselves up. They credit science, they just don't want to acknowledge its findings when they are disagreeable.
Group 2 believes in God's Earth being unchanging; evolution and global warming refute their main interest, so they deny it. They also accept than science is better than religion for explaining material things, they just don't admit this, even to themselves. Thus they apply false science because if they thought science itself wasn't important, they wouldn't even care what was found out.
Group 3 may well believe in global warming but still not trust the government to put in the right regulations to stop it, or feel that businesses will eventually deal with it to protect their own long term interests. They also universally accept evolution. They credit science, but think that Left policies don't actually help.

There isn't a counterpart for groups one and two on the Left for these reasons:
1: the Left opposes big businesses, so those with an interest in covering up for big businesses don't follow Left policies
2: with a less authoritarian (in the modern world) outlook the Left is a natural enemy to religious groups who wish to deny all authority but their own.

Therefore, the people you see are a vocal group, but who only make up a certain number of the Right. All people who deny science and global warming are right wing, but not all right wing people deny these.

[Moreau Catholic High]

But some Liberals want only certain material to be taught "inoffensive material." and also I too believe that God gave man and animals the ability to adapt and evolve to survive.

Such as?

[Lizardiar]

But some Liberals want only certain material to be taught "inoffensive material." and also I too believe that God gave man and animals the ability to adapt and evolve to survive.

Such as?

Some Liberals are revisionist historians. Some also think that the Holocaust shouldn't be taught, because some germans might take offense.

[Khadgar]

Some Liberals are revisionist historians. Some also think that the Holocaust shouldn't be taught, because some germans might take offense.

That is a lovely straw man you gots there. Planning to use him as a scarecrow?

[Lizardiar]

Some Liberals are revisionist historians. Some also think that the Holocaust shouldn't be taught, because some germans might take offense.

That is a lovely straw man you gots there. Planning to use him as a scarecrow?

So there aren't Revisionist Liberals? They are also Revisionist Republicans, I'm not saying that there isn't.

[Dempublicents1]

I'm not saying it's strange, what I'm saying it's strange that people will argue for something despite all evidence to the contrary that they are incorrect.

It's difficult for people to change their mind-set on something, particularly with a conservative mindset. So, when new information comes along and challenges the way they look at things, there is a tendency to deny it out of hand, rather than considering it.

[Moreau Catholic High]

But some Liberals want only certain material to be taught "inoffensive material." and also I too believe that God gave man and animals the ability to adapt and evolve to survive.

Such as?

Some Liberals are revisionist historians. Some also think that the Holocaust shouldn't be taught, because some germans might take offense.

I've never heard that. Where do you live?