The end of Obamacare?

Post Reply New Topic

*shrug* its going down though, that seems good enough to me.

It's a matter of evidence, though. One reason I always rejected evolution was that I didn't really understand it. I still don't believe evolution happens the way the most vocal proponents say it happens, but that's not a wholesale rejection of evolution. It seems to me the people making the biggest deal about it aren't the scientists, but rather those who "have a dog in the fight."

@Simon_says: Do you think abiogenesis theories about the origins of life and evolution are inextricably related? In other words, if evolution is true, does abiogenesis necessarily have to be true, also?

It is good. Hopefully it's not followed by another bump.

The problem with creationists goes beyond evolution though. They spread a paranoid world view that scientists are the enemy and that a global conspiracy is at work to supress the truth of their beliefs. A significant majority of Republicans are creationists and that also bleeds over to their stance on global warming. Having learned to parrot lazy talking points that invoke massive conspiracies, many feel entirely justified in invoking another one. That attitude is dangerous. There is a window where honest and legitimate critiques can serve a purpose but too many so called internet skeptics are playing the creationist's game of just saying stupid s*** and hoping it sticks.

It's this anti-science stance that is my primary problem with the Republican party. It's why conservative Charles Johnson of LIttle Green Footballs left the party and now spends so much time highlighting the anti-science rhetoric from the far right.



Of course not. The origin of life is a mystery until it is solved. Biological evolution is solid. Two seperate issues.

Last edited by simon_says on 05 Feb 2011, 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sources to backup these generalizations?

EDIT: Just because someone is a Creationist doesn't mean they give a whit about science or scientists.

You'll have to be more specific about what generalization you are curious about and maybe I can provde one. But I'm not your servant.

It's very common for creationists to have a very antagonistic view of "evolutionist scientists" or whatever they are calling them. That's not exactly news. That attitude is often spread from christian radio programs or preachers. Ive heard them myself.

Yeah, that's pretty common among creationists. Do you really not see a problem with that?


You probably have no idea how scientists say evolution happens.


No. Evolution relates to populations of organisms that already exist.

What anti-science stance does the republican party have? And the bold is what I was referring too. Also something describing this antagonistic viewpoint you claim creationists have would be appreciated.

I don't see how it would be better if they agreed with it while not understanding it.

They could just ... not force their opinions on others about things that they do not understand.

So, for example:

As opposed to:



I guess it is more about how dependent the Republicans turned of the Religious far right groups. Most likely because Bush scared most other groups away from the republican party. So republicans have to pander to the religious anti-science nuts if they want to keep those votes. Which in effects scares the remaining people away, the process gets repeated over and over until there will be no brains left in the republican party. Unless the less religious right wingers give their leadership a wake up call.

As for examples, well it didn't take me that long:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... stitution/
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-20 ... d-research
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... committee/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... nce-party/

I know more but I have to go eat lunch.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 05 Feb 2011, 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I do see a problem with it if, for whatever reason, it happens to be relevant. I think part of the problem is many creationists see evolution as a threat, which it isn't. But I'd also say that people in general don't feel like flooding internet forums over it--if they did, they'd be a lot less friendly for evolutionists than they are. The plain fact is not that many people really care about it or care to quibble about it.


I don't think the scientists are the ones really driving the issue, though. The way I see it, it more relates to the theist/anti-theist argument, one argument to counter another. If it is a matter of pure science, there's really nothing to debate. It's when religion enters the picture that things turn nasty. That's what I mean by the "dog in the fight." Scientists don't have a dog. Someone who is concerned about making a point pro/con about God, however, does.

I "have a clue" about what the scientists are saying. I'll support it as far as the evidence supports it, i.e. what you can actually show in a lab or in nature, in which you can actually see evolution in motion. Beyond that, I'm not so certain or convinced.


Right. I was trying to see if simon_says was aware of that, but you seem to have shown my hand for me.

voicing an opinion != forcing an opinion

It shouldnt be a surprise. Three R candidates raised their hands to say they don't accept evolution in the 2007 presidential debates. Either that's true or they were pandering to the polls.

68% of republicans don't believe in evolution in 2007 poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majori ... ution.aspx

60% of republicans don't accept evolution in 2008 poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Repub ... onism.aspx

52% of republicans don't accept evolution in 2010 poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four- ... onism.aspx

As for the antagnonism of creationists towards scientists who support evolution, that's like asking me to document palestinian antagonism toward the Israelis. It just takes a 20 second review of the material to see it. Check out ICR, AIG or google any preacher yelling about evolution on youtube. They often say things like the scientific community is rejecting any explanation that doesnt support the accepted view, that there is a conspiracy to keep them from publishing in peer reviewed journals, etc. The man is keeping them down, not their bad science (or lack of it).

What would you expect them to say? Scientific Creationism is just as good as The Theory of Evolution and it's an accident/oversight that it's not accepted? They need to have an antagonist to justify their exclusion.

And then when it comes to global warming, you get a similar reaction. I'm not digging out all that info. But you have some unbalanced republican congressmen saying things like, "We don't need to worry, Jesus is coming back before global warming will be a problem", or "god made the wind to cool the earth, if we build wind farms we'll slow the wind and heat the earth".

Check out Little Green Footballs. The guy loves highlighting these characters.

Of course I know that. I answered before he did.

Creationists constantly try to push the teaching of it in school.

Voicing an opinion about a subject you know nothing about is also not a good idea anyway.

He lives in a state where theyve modified the education standards to be creationist friendly twice in 10 years. I think he should know that. And that's not the only effort. They are tilting at that windmill in many states on a regular basis.

The first poll explains the large statistics of people who don't accept evolution as republicans, but doesn't actually state how they determined if someone believed in evolution or not.(They supply the chart that lists republicans as 68% against evolution but they do not supply what questions led them to this conclusion like they did with every other chart)

The 2nd poll marks democrats as roughly evenly divided between Creationists and Creationists who believe in evolution, with only 17% having a view of evolution that could be called contradicting Creationism, which I found interesting.

The third poll was discussed earlier.


Also you did not say against scientists who believe in evolution, you said against scientists and science. Although I suppose your point is roughly proven.

Tried to change the standards.



They are entitled to try to influence public education just as much as you are. It is a legal way of getting your opinions to young easily influenced minds, if you find this offensive well thats public education for you.