Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science' 1237
ndogg writes with news that Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has counterattacked those critical of conservative views on science, saying that they're 'anti-science' themselves. From a CBS report:
"In his remarks Monday, Santorum went beyond his usual discussion of the importance of increasing domestic energy production to deliver a blistering attack on environmental activists. He said global warming claims are based on 'phony studies,' and that climate change science is little more than 'political science.' His views are not 'anti-science' as Democrats claim, Santorum said. 'When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment,' he said to applause, and cited local ordinances to reduce coal dust pollution in Pittsburgh during the heyday of coal mining."
Re:So says the religious guy. (Score:5, Informative)
I've known many republicans in my time, having lived in conservative states, and just about all of them believed in evolution AND creationism (that's correct, they're not mutually exclusive, bible says why and evolution says how).
No, the Bible most clearly says why *and* how. It says God spontaneously created all of the animals and Adam, and then created Eve from Adam's rib - this all about 10000 years ago. *That* is creationism, and a terrifying 40% of the US population still believes that story. Yes, that is "strict creationism", and yes, it really is 40%. Before you think about debating that fact, go look up the statistics yourself.
True evolutionary theory starts with the idea that all life evolved over billions of years, starting with simple inorganic compounds that combined into some of the basic organic building blocks (amino acids, nucleotides, etc).
These theories are so far from compatible with each other a 4 year old can instinctively comprehend the contradiction. Unfortunately, society then spends the next 10 years teaching the child the obvious conclusion is wrong...
Re:Both parties will ignore things they don't like (Score:3, Informative)
The Laffer curve is a theoretical idea. The data does not back it (or at least a very weak correlation). I looked at multiple Keynes-like stimuluses by inspecting the unemployment numbers with my own eyes, and stimuluses appear to help more often than not. There is usually a bulge of improvement within about 4 months after the stimulus starts to flow that lasts until about a year after the stimulus ends. If Laffer works, show us the data.
Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (Score:4, Informative)
That was Bush's first term.
His second term was due to a corrupt electoral system in Ohio.
Incidentally, in Florida in 2000, butterfly ballots and chads were merely a diversion. The election was really stolen when some 30,000-50,000 African Americans were misclassified as felons and denied the right to vote.
Re:Pots and Kettles (Score:5, Informative)
That's all good and fine, but - if we accept it as true - all it proves is that the Republicans have more of their beliefs in conflict with science than Democrats. If you don't believe me, then sit down and add up the number of issues where Republicans are against the science, and then add up the same thing for Democrats. I recently heard a discussion where they were attempting to figure out the level of bias on the Left and Right and they needed an issue where Democrats are largely in conflict with the science. The best candidates for the left are anti-nuclear power (which is actually a left-wing in the 1960s, I doubt it has much traction now) and some of the organic food, anti-genetically modified food, and anti-vaccine movements. All of them look pretty small, though. I bet you'd have a hard time arguing that these are issues where a majority of the Left agree with any of them. On the other hand, creationism and anti-global warming are majority opinions among Republicans.
http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/dunlap-full.html [environmentmagazine.org]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx [gallup.com]
Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Both parties will ignore things they don't like (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So says the religious guy. (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, I'm a Christian who believes in both creation and evolution.
FWIW, that is also roughly the position of the Catholic Church [wikipedia.org] and has been for decades.
Santorum is a catholic but seems to be very much in the intelligent design camp. [wikipedia.org]
Re:So says the religious guy. (Score:5, Informative)
Roughly 2 billion people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Largest_religions_or_belief_systems_by_number_of_adherents [wikipedia.org]
Re:So says the religious guy. (Score:4, Informative)
The sonogram happens either way, and it is not intervaginal except during a very specific week of gestation, otherwise the external one is used.
What is being required is that the sonogram be shown to the patient before the procedure.
See below for the Virgina Planned Parenthood's own FAQ:
âoePatients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, weâ(TM)re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.
Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.â
Re:So says the religious guy. (Score:2, Informative)
Specifically, that science is in the business of finding truth. Sorry, not the case.
Science is the practice of making models of reality, based on observation, that provide results of sufficient reliability that engineering can be conducted.
If it's TRUTH you're searching for, try the Philosophy Department. . .
Re:So says the religious guy. (Score:5, Informative)
I mean the scientific method when I say "science".
And when people embrace views not backed by evidence they are not being scientific, and science CAN say that your belief has no evidence backing it up. Furthermore, science then says you should give this belief with no evidence a very low probability of being true. The scientific method can be applied to any question that has real world effects.
I am not conflating science with epistemology. While many subjects in philosophy, including epistemology, are important, they are an interesting side show compared to the many real world result that we get from science every day.
Re:So says the religious guy. (Score:4, Informative)
bah. why do i bother?
it's folly to say there's _definitely_ no God, in the same way it's folly to say you're 100% sure there's no monster under my bed.
but 9 times out of 10 it's just the frigging dog.
Re:Both parties will ignore things they don't like (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Net efficiency isn't the primary goal: it's too help people get and retain jobs during difficult times.
Your viewpoint seems like it would be better to let a person suffer with a broken arm for another 3 hours because a cheaper shipment of arm splints is coming in 3 hours.
Put another way, $75 during bad times is often much more "useful" than $100 during good times. You are thinking like an engineer here instead of factoring in human emotions and suffering.
A future generation may have a smaller party during future boom-times because of a stimulus, and to me that's a worthwhile trade-off.
Those are the high-end side of estimates. And in part that's what Obama actually did by lengthening unemployment benefits, which the GOP complained about. Multiple techniques were used to avoid mucking up any one sector.
Re:Santorum claiming that.... (Score:4, Informative)
I noticed you didn't mention Ron Paul. The mainstream media cringes every time they do; they try not to, but he's starting to gain momentum, especially among the patriots
I guess you haven't seen the results of the primaries. And this is the third time he's tried running for president.
Reality don't seem to register too well with libertarians.
Re:So says the religious guy. (Score:5, Informative)
Except that there is more evidence to suggest that the Christianity's deity is the invention of human beings than that such a deity exists in the real world. The characterization of the Christian deity is dependent on the age of the particular story characterizing that deity, with the new testament painting a very different picture from the old testament, and with elements of the Jesus story being apparent in the mythology of those cultures that Jews had contact with in the early days of Christianity. Not quite enough evidence to say exactly what happened or to build a well-developed theory, but more than has ever been collected to suggest that such a deity actually exists (which is, "none at all").
Anyone with two semesters of study in ancient Greek culture (language, literature, mythology, etc.) can plainly see that Christianity is just another Hellenistic mystery cult. With lots of Greek mythology grafted on.
Virgin birth? Miracles? Witty destruction of you're opponents' positions? Raising the dead? Executed by the state for "impiety", yet embracing that murder? Harrowing Hell? Taken up into heaven?
You can't make this stuff up... because it was all made up centuries before Christianity ever got started.
And continued to be made up: We know of a Roman citizen who was prosecuted for raising the dead.
Except for the supernatural bits, Jesus is just Socrates promoted to godhood.
A tiny amount of education can dispel a huge amount of superstition.
Re:So says the religious guy. (Score:2, Informative)
Only in this particular debate, the actual scientists agree with Unnamed Democrat. That doesn't quite have the symmetry you were going for, though, right?
That really depends on the debate, doesn't it? We keep hearing that there is "Consensus" about man-made global warming being a fact in shrill tones, with accusations of being anti-science, or a "denier" if you disagree or have reservations. But the simple fact is that there has never been a genuine consensus [climatedepot.com] among all scientists, not even all climatologists, that global warming, to the extent that it exists, is man-made. (Indeed, how often do you see tens of thousands of people agree about anything with no dissenting or differing views at all? I don't think that there are even many dictatorships that claim the vote is 100% for the ruling party anymore.) The faux "consensus" is in fact a means of control and a way to provide an opening for punishing dissent by denying publication, tenure, grants, and damaging reputations. The stakes are enormous: billons of dollars in green energy funding, carbon exchanges, direct government and bureaucratic control of much of the economy and daily life with the proffered goal of controlling carbon emissions. Progressives and leftists have always wanted more government power to regulate the economy. No wonder the Communists march about global warming [youtube.com] - ironic given the Soviet record on the environment [mondediplo.com].
The Climategate emails are quite revealing.
Peer-Review Thuggery [nationalreview.com]
Climategate 2.0 [wsj.com]