Just a pet peeve of mine but Darwin wasn't the first to develop a theory of evolution. I think the British like to claim they discovered things (like calculus) that had already been developed. Edit: evolution did not just happen, it is still happening. Anyways, let me just throw this out there: the Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest. So what does a person's political or religious beliefs matter? Well, they matter quite a bit to those who tend to pick at ad-hominems rather than scrutinize the available information at hand.
Yes and good point. Just named Darwin because he is the biggest name. True not all religious people or political people are monotonous in their beliefs. That said if you look various scientific issues one's religious and political beliefs tend to track closely with those views. Granted there are issues like vaccination that seem to cross political and religious views but things like Evolution does seem to be the case.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't trying to call you out or assume a stance for you. I just appreciated your post, and when I said "you" I was using it in the universal sense, as in, anyone who was reading my post -- not you in particular.
So you believe what was in 1890 .. . still is today? Who said Scientist taint there studies the remark was to how the vote . . Do you think Scientist would not vote for the party that gave them the most money to . .you know.. . . do science? People vote . . .to an extent . . .in their own self interest Rocket River
Linus Pauling's career was ruined because he thought above ground testing of nuclear bomba was an environmental danger. He later won his second Nobel for his stance. Many of his colleagues thought he was a traitor because of what he said. Scientist are humans, too, and are therefore as vulnerable to making the same kinds of mistakes as everyone else.
Both sides have their fair share of stupidity. It's an American trait. Intellectualism is not celebrated in America. However, the right is tied up with the religious morons that actively reject science and intellect. The left is generally more educated. The right likes to complain about higher education being liberal bastions. Blah blah blah.... ...so yeah the right is anti science, but the left isn't perfect
You don't understand why some people object to the government forcing you to put things into your body? I have no issue with vaccinations personally and while I think most of the anti-vaccine people have a flawed notion of them based on some bullcrap study performed years ago, it's not really all that surprising that some people are opposed to them. Same with GMOs, anyone who thinks we know exactly how GMOs are going to affect us in the long-run are simply lying. We don't know for sure, and while I personally am not all that concerned, I don't think people should be forced to unknowingly put substances that are not "naturally" occurring. Nuclear power? Safety. Some people are afraid of nuclear disasters like Chernobyl. Why should these people be demonized because they have fears and object to certain things? Should we focus our policies around them? Hellllll nawww, but I just don't get why people get so angry with these people just because their opinions differ from theirs.
Huh? Are you talking about how scientists vote, money in science, science itself, or the acceptance of certain scientific views by people of particular leanings? YOu seem to be jumping and mixing up various issues. I don't think scientists count for a large enough voting block to matter in most elections so I'm not sure how relevant how scientists vote is to the overall acceptance of science among wider political parties.
I don't think anyone is saying scientists aren't humans. While we like to talk of science in terms of individuals science isn't actually about individuals. As you correctly noted Darwin didn't individually develop the theory of Evolution. More importantly he didn't individually provide most of the evidence for Evolution. Like most major scientific theories many people contributed to it. This is why when deciding on things like policy based off of science prevailing consensus is so important because those are the generally the views that have underwent the most scrutiny and have had the most testing both to try to prove and disprove them. The scientific method is designed to weed out individual bias and even individual observation. While it isn't always perfect has served fairly well for the advancement of science. Also to add this thread isn't really about science but about the acceptance and / or the understanding of science among political ideologies. Scientists certainly aren't immune from politics but as stated the scientific method is designed to weed things like that out. For example views regarding difference between races certainly were motivated by political and cultural views and for a long time it was accepted that racial differences also meant differences in all sorts of things such as intelligence. Through genetics and other testing has shown that racial differences beyond appearance aren't really that prevalent.
it may not have cured all, but it has cured or almost eradicated some. are you saying we should disregard everything science has taught us since it isn't perfect? it is certainly a better guide than an old book based on fiction and pseudoscience. you are indeed laughable. your way of thinking is dangerous and is how the dark ages came about. you are laughed at now and will still be laughed at 100 years from now.
Nope. You fail again at reading comprehension. The point is all the "experts" crowing about how much they know due to science is silly. Their ideas will be laughed out of the room in 100 years.
When you write so poorly, comprehension is difficult. Your "ideas" are laughed out of the room today because they are absolutely stupid. I have no doubt that some of the things science believes today will be laughable in a century, but many of them won't. The VAST majority of what science believed 100 years ago is still true today. Your ability to cherry pick a few disproved theories from a century ago does NOT invalidate a single thing that science tells us is true today. It is certainly possible to disprove current theories, but one must do so using the scientific method, not just spouting off about antiquated ideas that were rendered antique because of science. Sadly, spouting off appears to be all you have.
texxx...are you aware that technology builds on itself? The computers today wouldn't exist without the computers from 20 years ago. Did you know that computers can actually be traced back to non-electric devices? Imagine that! It's almost like science is evolving or something. I know you are just trolling and I try my best not to engage, but I just had to say something.
no were not. 10 years ago i didnt believe in global warming, stem cells, vaccines, evolution, etc. ive changed my mind on all that stuff even the idea of christianity lately. this aint about science or smartness. its about one group holding onto power when everyone underneath is going the other way because of science and schools which make people democrat. conservatives dont like science as much because it makes people stop believing in the old things like marriage being man and woman only or the church being a good thing. they want things to go back to the way things used to be 60 years ago.
How does science prove that marriage isn't between a man and a woman? Marriage is a scientific issue. Democrats don't think the church is a bad thing either. Science and schools do not make people Democrat. The fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want to help everyone by artificial means (subsidies, benefits, min. wage increase), whereas Republicans want to help people help themselves, ie a better economy for job creation. Do each of them often times contradict these general summaries? Certainly. But for the most part, I believe this is the true difference in the two parties. Democrats are just better at demonizing others that don't see it their way.
Republicans seen to favor the rich over the poor Democrats seem to favor the poor over the rich in general terms Republicans may say they beleive in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps .. but they turn around and cut off and decrease every avenue you have of doing that Democrats maybe trying to give you a hand up but sometimes they do not put in incentives for people to do more for self. QUESTION: If every human in America is promised 3 meals a day [it might only be beans and rice], shelter [a cot in the corner] and clothing [a moomoo or something] . . . . . what would that world look like? Republicans tend to think no one would work and everyone would be satisfied with this bear minimum and beg for more Democrats seem to think people will then have time to focus and increase their lot in life through work because they would not have to worry about those things. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle Rocket River
Letting people die of curable diseases because someone thinks a blastocyst has some form of ethereal conscience is way, way sadder.
