For some reason, I don’t believe you were poised to do anything of the sort.
LHoD produced numbers that show the Republican Party split nearly down the middle on the evolution issue. For the record, do you believe this to be a demonstration of a functional relationship?
Okay, let’s try something else. How many democratic senators can you name who deny evolution or climate change? Sure, you can find democrats who believe nutso things. We tend not to allow that in our elected representatives. That’s the difference between 50% and 33%.
So Democratic Senators do not represent their party’s ideological make-up? Mind blown.
Based on those numbers:
You can say something similar about support of gay marriage.
Do you deny those conclusions? Certainly, there are large numbers of Republicans who believe in evolution (and climate change), and support gay rights. Certainly, there are also large numbers of Democrats who don’t.
If one were to find Random American Citizen, who does not believe in evolution, climate change, or gay marriage, and one was forced to guess: “Is this person a Republican, or a Democrat?”…the odds are higher that that person is a Republican.
The democrats keep their worst instincts (and members) from gaining power. We could have seen a massive groundswell of democratic nutters in 2000, after Bush v. Gore, claiming that Bush was not a legitimate president and that Gore is the real president (AKA the “Michael Moore” coalition). We could have seen a similar groundswell of democratic nutters in 2001, insisting that Bush either caused or did not prevent 9/11. We didn’t.
The same cannot be said of the republicans. Paul Broun, Louie Gohmert, Donald Trump…
Guys, notice what WillFarnaby has done. The question was, what’s evil in the GOP? and someone mentioned science denial.
Rather than deny that, Will changed it slightly. He said, in essence, that being a Republican doesn’t automatically force you to deny science.
Well, sure, but nobody said otherwise. People arguing with him may think he’s dealing with the original argument, but since he’s changed it to something pedantic, irrelevant, and technically correct, it’s silly to argue with him on this point.
To be fair, a lot of us sneered at the “President-Select” and argued that his election wasn’t legitimate. But we did not go as far as to say that Gore was “really” President. I heard a lot of the former (although not a “groundswell” by any means" but never a word of the latter.
We wanted a full and fair recount, and not an anointing of Gore as winner by the Supreme Court. Lacking that, we said a lot of very intemperate things about The Shrub. (And about Scalia, too, may he rot in hell.)
Which, as you note, nobody in the world (?) is claiming. (Okay, maybe there are eight lunatics out there…) There have been, in fact, many pro-science Republicans (and, embarrassingly, quite a few anti-science Democrats. Anti-vaccination stupidity has taken its toll.)
But the stats you posted were damning.
And how much of this sneering came from elected officials within the democratic party? Very little, right?
You and I most likely agree on 99.99% of all scientific fact. There are a lot of facts that no one disputes. Engineering. Biology. Physics. We disagree on a handful of theories or more accurately we disagree to what extent man affects the climate and how much evolution has occurred.
Because Republicans and Conservatives disagree with you on .01% of all science, you want to label them evil and science deniers? Frankly, if someone is that close in thinking to another, then they must be very similar to them.
If anybody (Republican or Democrat) is denying that all forms of life on this planet–including humans–are the result of evolution, and descend from some common ancestor which was modified by random processes (e.g., mutation and genetic recombination) but shaped by natural selection to produce all existing or known species of life, then they aren’t denying “.01% of science”; they’re denying the central organizing principle of all of biology.
“I don’t reject chemistry, just that ‘Atomic Theory’ stuff and all that guff about the ‘Periodic Table’. But sure, when I add Reagent A to Reagent B, I get a blue bubbly liquid–heck, anyone can see that!”
Democratic leadership doesn’t cater to these ninnies. Republican leadership does. That’s crazy.
That “.01%” happens to be really important.
Half of it is something which is basically the fundamental theory of modern biology, and necessary to understand for anyone interested in any field even related to biology, including things like virology and medicine.
The other half includes one of the most pressing global problems facing our planet, an issue we are all contributing to and which is already having rather substantial consequences, consequences only likely to get worse.
Neither of these things are in any dispute among scientists. There is virtually complete consensus among life scientists with regards to evolution - there are literally more people named “Steve” in the life sciences who support evolution than there are people with PhDs who reject it. Climate skeptics are virtually unrepresented in the peer-reviewed literature, and the vast majority of climatologists both in the USA and around the world accept that global warming is real, caused by humans, and will have serious consequences.
In both cases, Republicans are denying these important scientific theories. What’s more, they’re trying to prevent them from being taught in school, ensuring that the next generation grows up even more misinformed.
You can try to minimize it by pointing to the rest of science that republicans accept. That’s not really comforting. At the end of the day, what we have is science playing second fiddle to ideology, be it political (“We don’t need the government to solve our problems, the free market will provide”) or religious (“Bible says it, I believe it, end of story”). That’s not okay. What other inconvenient science are they going to throw out the window when they realize it works against them? Vaccines? Oh wait.
This is the difference in my mind – certainly individuals on both sides on occasion believe crazy/evil/(whatever you want to call it) things, but one side enshrines that craziness (in this case science denial) into their platforms and proposed legislation. The other side does not.
To me, the real crazy on the Republican side is where they diverge from regular political philosophy topics in their various platforms, and veer wildly off into what amounts to belief statements and conspiracy theories.
There’s a huge difference between having statements clarifying your view on the role of government and how that affects certain issues, such as saying that you prefer strict constructionism within the Federal judiciary, and doing things like denying accepted scientific views. And they make it worse by going the extra crazy mile by equating that with a political agenda on the opposite side of the aisle.
For example, a line from the 2016 Texas GOP platform is:
Not only do the essentially deny a massive worldwide scientific consensus, but then they conflate that scientific consensus with some sort of loony conspiracy theory meant to allow their opposition to do things they don’t like, such as regulate certain businesses, etc…
It’s that kind of thing that strikes me as insane; it’s blurring the line between things I’d consider legitimate for one of the two major parties in the nation to espouse, and things that weird nuts who wear coats in the summer and rant at trees in the park espouse.
No. Creationists do not agree on biology, or facts. Biology is 100% the study of the processes and results of evolution, so if you reject evolution, you reject biology. All of it.
Same with climate. You reject climate change, you reject the entire science of climatology. That’s not “0.01%”. That’s huge swaths of hard-won human knowledge rejected out of hand because you find it inconvenient.
Which in turn demonstrates a fundamental philosophical difference. Is science a tool for gaining truth? Or an inane triviality that only becomes important to you after your enemies have used it to refute your mistaken political ideals?
That’s very true.
That rhetoric is really about removing political dissent from entire constituencies and ghettoizing it in the cities. I’ve known too many people who left an intolerant part of the country to go somewhere more tolerant.
That’s not true. People who say this are not helping. Biological science is not some catechism with a central dogma laid down by the prophet Darwin. It is like all scientific disciplines, derived piecemeal and empirically.
There are good reasons–reasons from evidence–to believe that life has evolved over the aeons without overselling macro-evolution as some sort of conceptual linchpin. Lots of practical biology, from medicine to ecology, works quite well with an idea of special creation or a “God of the gaps.” This exaltation of macro-evolution to “the primary truth needed to understand the rest” does not hold water; it shows your own ignorance of biology, the history of the science, and the history of debate about evolution; and it makes “evolutionists” look like fools. You are not helping with this.
That’s not equivalent.
This, OTOH, is on the money.
Just to note – this is the exact same approach that allowed the tobacco industry to win their lawsuits for so many years. You can’t point to a specific instance and say it is directly caused. As LHOD points out, they are linked even so.
Will, would you agree with the tobacco industry that because doctors can’t prove that a specific instance of cancer is attributed to smoking we therefore can’t claim there is a link between them at all? Do you not see that logic as flawed in both cases? Do you think your argument is valid in one but not the other?