What is it with conservatism and science?

[BebopKid]

I think the main idea here is what is "mainstream science"?

Mainstream science is led by popular opinion and big business. Scientists are paid to generate reports that support what will make money for industry.

This is why the "conservative" scientists get a bad wrap. Because they aren't out to make money by duping the public and they report on the evidence which suggests that evolution is false, the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and the global warming doesn't exist.

[Enadail]

You've never heard the quote, "Grow a spine!"?

I've heard it... but in context... it sounded too literal... that's why... yah....

[Lizardiar]

You've never heard the quote, "Grow a spine!"?

I've heard it... but in context... it sounded too literal... that's why... yah....

He is joking because a lot of our current politicians don't figh or argue for their sides enough. They let the govt. pass bills that would give billions when we are already in trillions of dollars in debt.

[Parthenon]

"Global warming is a hoax"*

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

Then why give it as an example? There is no solid science indicating man-made global warming exists, so this is a completey ridiculous example of your point. ...but you already knew this or you wouldn't have felt it necessary to say that. Your creationism/evolution example is just as invalid. You need to do some more research as to what those terms mean. Creationism has many different forms, and you focus on the literal Biblical interpretation espoused by a few Protestant sects. A more educated understanding of what creationism entails leads to no conflict with evolution at all. Evolution deals with how things evolve from other things. In spite of widespread misconceptions on the matter, evolution does NOT pretend to explain how things started. Creationism, on the other hand, offers explanations of the ultimate origin of life but does not describe the mechanics of what happens after that. There is no conflict, except for those who intentionally just base their understanding of the topics on some bigoted sound bites. Please don't be one of those people.

Now, if you have ACTUAL examples of bad science out there, feel free to present them, but please don't make ridiculous and unsupported generalizations like that without even having a basic understanding of what you are stating.

Judging by this post, you're probably not from America, as you seem to dismiss the biblical literalism version of creationism as some "fringe" element. Over here in America, the majority, not the plurality, the majority of adult citizens do not accept evolution. It is disingenuous to dismiss biblical literalism as a fringe element and pretend that most creationists accept evolution.

Give me a damn break, that's the most ignorant BS I have ever read. I live in the deep south in an area that is probably around 90%+ southern baptist and the majority believe in evolution as a science. God is regarded as the designer and originator of life, something which SCIENCE has no explanation for either. Get the nonsense out of your head that every single Christian that believes in the existence of God also thinks the earth is 6000 years old and humans roamed with dinosaurs. Honestly, when is the last time you have even talked to a Christian and not been thinking snide remarks and ignoring their actual explanation of their views?


as to global warming...
There is no consensus in science over the origins of it. Personally, I am a believer of the school of thought that man's impact is minimal. Read the works of Dr. Dennis Avery and Dr. Fred Singer.

[Farnhamia]

I think the main idea here is what is "mainstream science"?

Mainstream science is led by popular opinion and big business. Scientists are paid to generate reports that support what will make money for industry.

This is why the "conservative" scientists get a bad wrap. Because they aren't out to make money by duping the public and they report on the evidence which suggests that evolution is false, the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and the global warming doesn't exist.

I don't see a [sarcasm] tag. If you actually think this, I laugh out loud at you.

[Brutanion]

I think the main idea here is what is "mainstream science"?

Mainstream science is led by popular opinion and big business. Scientists are paid to generate reports that support what will make money for industry.

This is why the "conservative" scientists get a bad wrap. Because they aren't out to make money by duping the public and they report on the evidence which suggests that evolution is false, the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and the global warming doesn't exist.

Actually, no serious scientist suggests these things. The ones who make such claims come from Regent College and are paid huge amounts to keep putting out the same papers year on year whilst real scientists debunk them.
Chemistry is led by big business, ecology is opposed by it as global warming is a real thing. The only grey area is whether or not it's a natural thing, mad made, or a combination. It's better from a short term point of view to just deny the whole thing.
There is also government sponsored science, which tends towards physics. Often in the form of jet fighters and alternative fuel in various measures depending on your country.

[Sdaeriji]

Give me a damn break, that's the most ignorant BS I have ever read. I live in the deep south in an area that is probably around 90%+ southern baptist and the majority believe in evolution as a science. God is regarded as the designer and originator of life, something which SCIENCE has no explanation for either. Get the nonsense out of your head that every single Christian that believes in the existence of God also thinks the earth is 6000 years old and humans roamed with dinosaurs. Honestly, when is the last time you have even talked to a Christian and not been thinking snide remarks and ignoring their actual explanation of their views?

Not that you'll ever learn that personal experience =/= verifiable truth, but http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwi ... ution.aspx

[Parthenon]

Give me a damn break, that's the most ignorant BS I have ever read. I live in the deep south in an area that is probably around 90%+ southern baptist and the majority believe in evolution as a science. God is regarded as the designer and originator of life, something which SCIENCE has no explanation for either. Get the nonsense out of your head that every single Christian that believes in the existence of God also thinks the earth is 6000 years old and humans roamed with dinosaurs. Honestly, when is the last time you have even talked to a Christian and not been thinking snide remarks and ignoring their actual explanation of their views?

Not that you'll ever learn that personal experience =/= verifiable truth, but http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwi ... ution.aspx

Any poll that has 36% giving no opinion and 1% no answer shouldn't be regarded as an absolute truth.

Edit: Either way it doesn't support his claims that a majority dismiss evolution as a science.

[Sdaeriji]

Give me a damn break, that's the most ignorant BS I have ever read. I live in the deep south in an area that is probably around 90%+ southern baptist and the majority believe in evolution as a science. God is regarded as the designer and originator of life, something which SCIENCE has no explanation for either. Get the nonsense out of your head that every single Christian that believes in the existence of God also thinks the earth is 6000 years old and humans roamed with dinosaurs. Honestly, when is the last time you have even talked to a Christian and not been thinking snide remarks and ignoring their actual explanation of their views?

Not that you'll ever learn that personal experience =/= verifiable truth, but http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwi ... ution.aspx

Any poll that has 36% giving no opinion and 1% no answer shouldn't be regarded as an absolute truth.

An independently verified third-party poll of over 1,000 people is a lot more evidence of something than your say-so. If you can provide reasons why we should doubt the results of the poll other than, again, your say-so, then I eagerly await your evidence.

[Moreau Catholic High]

Judging by this post, you're probably not from America, as you seem to dismiss the biblical literalism version of creationism as some "fringe" element. Over here in America, the majority, not the plurality, the majority of adult citizens do not accept evolution. It is disingenuous to dismiss biblical literalism as a fringe element and pretend that most creationists accept evolution.
Give me a damn break, that's the most ignorant BS I have ever read. I live in the deep south in an area that is probably around 90%+ southern baptist and the majority believe in evolution as a science. God is regarded as the designer and originator of life, something which SCIENCE has no explanation for either. Get the nonsense out of your head that every single Christian that believes in the existence of God also thinks the earth is 6000 years old and humans roamed with dinosaurs. Honestly, when is the last time you have even talked to a Christian and not been thinking snide remarks and ignoring their actual explanation of their views?


as to global warming...
There is no consensus in science over the origins of it. Personally, I am a believer of the school of thought that man's impact is minimal. Read the works of Dr. Dennis Avery and Dr. Fred Singer.

Alright, fine, I'll accept that the are where you live accepts evolution. However, a the February Gallup poll shows that only 39% of Americans accept evolution. It's true that not all Christians are literal biblical creationists. But those that are the loudest, which ends up giving Christians a bad name. But when only 39% of Americans accept one of the most fundamental tenants of biology, there's definitely something wrong.

As for global warming, please take a look at the rise in the Co2 levels correlated with the rise in temperature. Also please look at the drop in solar activity, yet the still continued rise in temperature. Examine the data from the US Geological Survey.

[Khadgar]

Any poll that has 36% giving no opinion and 1% no answer shouldn't be regarded as an absolute truth.

Edit: Either way it doesn't support his claims that a majority dismiss evolution as a science.

Well if only 39% believe it's true, that means 61% don't, or don't believe so enough to state such on poll.

[Northwest Slobovia]

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?

Your biases? The left has plenty of folks unclear on the "science" concept. It's not hard to find lefties with beliefs that anything synthetic is bad and that anything "natural" is good. But if one is used to dealing with folks who need to "purge the toxic karma from their systems", one may not notice so much.

Speaking as a scientist w/ socially liberal but fiscally conservative views -- ie, both big parties irritate me at this point-- I think the wackos are pretty evenly distributed on the fringes of the US political system.

[Otagia]

Give me a damn break, that's the most ignorant BS I have ever read. I live in the deep south in an area that is probably around 90%+ southern baptist and the majority believe in evolution as a science. God is regarded as the designer and originator of life, something which SCIENCE has no explanation for either. Get the nonsense out of your head that every single Christian that believes in the existence of God also thinks the earth is 6000 years old and humans roamed with dinosaurs. Honestly, when is the last time you have even talked to a Christian and not been thinking snide remarks and ignoring their actual explanation of their views?

Not that you'll ever learn that personal experience =/= verifiable truth, but http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwi ... ution.aspx

Any poll that has 36% giving no opinion and 1% no answer shouldn't be regarded as an absolute truth.

Edit: Either way it doesn't support his claims that a majority dismiss evolution as a science.

Yes, because it's quite impossible for people to not have an opinion on a subject.

[Enadail]

Give me a damn break, that's the most ignorant BS I have ever read. I live in the deep south in an area that is probably around 90%+ southern baptist and the majority believe in evolution as a science. God is regarded as the designer and originator of life, something which SCIENCE has no explanation for either. Get the nonsense out of your head that every single Christian that believes in the existence of God also thinks the earth is 6000 years old and humans roamed with dinosaurs. Honestly, when is the last time you have even talked to a Christian and not been thinking snide remarks and ignoring their actual explanation of their views?


as to global warming...
There is no consensus in science over the origins of it. Personally, I am a believer of the school of thought that man's impact is minimal. Read the works of Dr. Dennis Avery and Dr. Fred Singer.

Sorry man, but when 54% of American's don't believe in evolution, either you know the most open minded of the crowd, or general statistics are wrong. No sensible person thinks every Christian is an idiot... but the vocal ones make up for them.

You might not guy this, as its CBS, but its the first link I found. There's plenty more.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/ ... 5223.shtml

Note, the graph's CSS is a bit screwed, so the title ABOVE each bar is its actual title, not to the right.

Last time I talked to a Christian and not started out with the assumption they were an idiot was today. So don't act high and mighty please. Maybe its not for you, but creationism is the literal creationism, and evolution, whether you think God started it or not, is evolution.

And again, there is no consensus on the origin, but there is consensus that our habits are making the problem worse. I've read both their works, and while their work is sound, a majority of ecologists at least agree that we're having an impact, so...

[Grays Harbor]

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?

Its my opinion that the impression that conservatives are anti-science is because the wack-jobs who try to pass themselves off as conservative and get themselves on the news or where ever with their looney theories is because they make for a much more colorful interview and create more controversey, which means ratings for the news networks. It is much more entertaining for the average MTV generation viewers to watch a right-wing looney and left-wing nutbar yell and scream at each other than it is to watch a well reasoned debate between intelligent liberals and conservatives.

As for the main question, I don't believe it is conservatism in general who oppose science, its just the very vocal extremeists seem to be the ones who get the coverage, mostly because of what I wrote above.

[Parthenon]

I don't buy into the notion that a poll of 1000 listed phone owners is representative of 304,059,724 Americans. It just isn't a perfectly random sampling.

[Moreau Catholic High]

When it's been shown in multiple polls that the people who accept evolution in the minority, you should.

[Sdaeriji]

I don't buy into the notion that a poll of 1000 listed phone owners is representative of 304,059,724 Americans. It just isn't a perfectly random sampling.

So you have no knowledge of how polling works. Thanks, but that really isn't reasons why we should doubt the results of the poll other than, again, your say-so.

[Greater Americania]

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.

Because conservatism is about conserving traditions and because science and logic contradict these traditions. So therefore when conservatives hear about intelligent things contradicting their bullshit, they simply deny it. Christianity is an established American tradition and they want to conserve it. Evolution goes against Christianity which is a tradition so therefore they oppose it. Global warming goes against the American tradition of unregulated Capitalism because it can cause people to call for government sanctions on companies. So they just deny it. And back in the day when cigarettes were an American pastime, people didn't want to let go of that so they denied it.

[Enadail]

I don't buy into the notion that a poll of 1000 listed phone owners is representative of 304,059,724 Americans. It just isn't a perfectly random sampling.

If that's at the CBS poll...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... 29204.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN2922 ... 29?sp=true

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwi ... ution.aspx

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-cou ... ution.html

Should I go on?

[You-Gi-Owe]

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.

Great Idea for a Topic !

As a conservative, it's my opinion, that the scientific topics which become politicized are suspect, especially when money is at stake.

Very few scientists seem to be working without public funding.

It appears that the scientific community, again, especially where money is involved, has become the whore of the political correctness movement to the point that they don't necessarily need everyone to agree with a hypothesis or theory to claim a "proof" or "consensus".

[Khadgar]

I don't buy into the notion that a poll of 1000 listed phone owners is representative of 304,059,724 Americans. It just isn't a perfectly random sampling.

So you have no knowledge of how polling works. Thanks, but that really isn't reasons why we should doubt the results of the poll other than, again, your say-so.

This is a superb example though. Here we have someone of conservative political bent, who upon seeing data that conflicts with what he "knows" to be true, rejects it. There's no logical reason to reject the polling data. The methodology is sound and well accepted and has been for years. He simply refuses to believe it.

Why I'm not sure. Admitting mistake isn't easy of course, but this goes beyond that I'd wager.

[Free Soviets]

I don't buy into the notion that a poll of 1000 listed phone owners is representative of 304,059,724 Americans. It just isn't a perfectly random sampling.

the poll was rigged, i tells ya!!!1!

come on, seriously?

[You-Gi-Owe]

When it's been shown in multiple polls that the people who accept evolution in the minority, you should.

Polls aren't above manipulation. There is a science to opinion polls. Opinions aren't necessarily facts.

[Moreau Catholic High]

Definitely. But when multiple polls from multiple organizations across a period of many years give the same result, the result is most likely accurate.