The Cancer eating at America

[morbidjbyrd]

Republicans Against Science
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 28, 2011


To see what Mr. Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the G.O.P. nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.
...
I could point out that Mr. Perry is buying into a truly crazy conspiracy theory, which asserts that thousands of scientists all around the world are on the take, with not one willing to break the code of silence. ...


FULL ARTICLE,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/op...?_r=2&emc=eta1

[Noomz]

A lot of people will need to educate themselves. A scientific theory doesn't mean that it's just a coneptual idea, a concept and an idea is known as a thesis. A theory is something that can be proven through the scientific method.

The demonising of science in the US is frightening and the growth of religious zealotry nothing short of terrifying. I hope it turns before it gets worse. Being religious doesn't equals being uneducated or foolish, there are plenty of scientists all over the world who have faith, but everyone needs education or reason and logic will start being substituted with dogma and fear.

Saying that evolution has gaps in it is implying that religion doesn't, and it's such hypocricy and ignorance that is very dangerous.
If science is so wrong and so bad, then perhaps people who think so should stop enjoying the benefits of it that such scientific understandings have given us all.

Ignorance must truly be bliss.

[Dacien]

Evolution does have gaps in it, some pretty gaping ones actually. Not saying it's fallacy or it isn't, just saying he's right about that.

[Vektorix]

Please elaborate on these "gaps".

[Deleted]

99% of what Krugman says is total bollocks but this I'll agree on. However I don't think Perry or creationists in general are against science.

[Dacien]

Please elaborate on these "gaps".

Transitional fossils, for one.

[Noomz]

Evolution does have gaps in it, some pretty gaping ones actually. Not saying it's fallacy or it isn't, just saying he's right about that.

Are they gaps simply because we cannot explain every faucet of nature, and because people are not able to comprehend the complexity and time-spawn involved? There are often gaps in science, it is because we cannot understand exactly everything in every way at all times. A theory is establisehd science, but all theories develop as more information becomes available and as our understanding and information on the subject the theory handles grows, and all of those grow.


It's called the theory of gravity, yet none question gravity on the same basis as they would attack the theory of evolution. It's all simply based in illiteracy, uneducated and scientificly handicapped people make assumptiosn and statements on a subject that goes high above their understanding. And what's worse is how they don't know that, and how they often don't try to understand.

Not every person in the world has the mind to understand scientific theories, but that should also mean one does not try to throw dirt at something one doesn't understand, something I thought lots of people tell each other regarding many other things in society.

---------- Post added 2011-08-29 at 08:44 PM ----------

Transitional fossils, for one.

So one thing that cannot be completely explained or proven, yet, simply because of the massive work and difficulty it would mean to find such an amount of fossils that are intact that could be studied to find such "transitions", is suddenly proof against it or proof for something that let's be honest, there is no proof for, such as a god or gods.

I heartily discourage you from reading sources on evolutionary criticism on the internet, as I could guarantee you they are uneducated and ignorant of the subject to say the least.
But by all means, tell bacteria and viruses that evolution doesn't excist. They are the fastest evolving things on the planet where visual change can be documented not over tens of thousands of years, but a mere decade or even much less.

[Dacien]

Are they gaps simply because we cannot explain every faucet of nature, and because people are not able to comprehend the complexity and time-spawn involved? There are often gaps in science, it is because we cannot understand exactly everything in every way at all times. A theory is establisehd science, but all theories develop as more information becomes available and as our understanding and information on the subject the theory handles grows, and all of those grow.


It's called the theory of gravity, yet none question gravity on the same basis as they would attack the theory of evolution. It's all simply based in illiteracy, uneducated and scientificly handicapped people make assumptiosn and statements on a subject that goes high above their understanding. And what's worse is how they don't know that, and how they often don't try to understand.

Not every person in the world has the mind to understand scientific theories, but that should also mean one does not try to throw dirt at something one doesn't understand, something I thought lots of people tell each other regarding many other things in society.

---------- Post added 2011-08-29 at 08:44 PM ----------


So one thing that cannot be completely explained or proven, yet, simply because of the massive work and difficulty it would mean to find such an amount of fossils that are intact that could be studied to find such "transitions", is suddenly proof against it or proof for something that let's be honest, there is no proof for, such as a god or gods.

I heartily discourage you from reading sources on evolutionary criticism on the internet, as I could guarantee you they are uneducated and ignorant of the subject to say the least.

I've been aware of the arguments for and against evolution for over a decade, and it was not gathered from the Internet. All I've said is that gaps exist. I did not argue for it, or against it, or for god, or against god. Simply that gaps exist. I started this line of discussion I suppose with my original comment, but I've gone down this road many, many times, and I'm overcome with lethargy at the mere thought of doing it again. I apologize for the cop out this will appear to be.

[Maharishi]

I've been aware of the arguments for and against evolution for over a decade, and it was not gathered from the Internet. All I've said is that gaps exist. I did not argue for it, or against it, or for god, or against god. Simply that gaps exist. I started this line of discussion I suppose with my original comment, but I've gone down this road many, many times, and I'm overcome with lethargy at the mere thought of doing it again. I apologize for the cop out this will appear to be.

But gaps in the fossil record don't equate to gaps in the theory. For instance, there used to be a hefty gap for land mammals becoming whales. We now have about 5 species who show the transition. One could then argue, now we have 6 gaps where we had 1 before.

Edit: You're right, it's not worth the argument. Confirmation bias is everywhere.

[morbidjbyrd]

Transitional fossils, for one.

I hope this is a joke and the /sarcasm wasnt strong enough.


If not, then I have a statement for you to help you understand. (Or I hope)

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, even if we dont know to what animal or plant it goes to.
To suggest a transitional fossil is "missing' is absurd, as their are an almost infinite # of changes that have occurred through the fossil record of any animal or plant.

When one finds a new fossil, it only means you have gathered a small piece of an enormous puzzle. The clues you unearth only shows you a small part of the picture, and its so small, that it only allows you to place it within a general area.


@Dacien,
I would love to hear about these gaps...be very specific please.

PS: It is simply shocking that the Repubs have single highhandedly manipulated the definition of an elitist from the wealthy to the intelligent. The only thing I find more shocking is the # of masses who fall for it.

[Dacien]

Edit: You're right, it's not worth the argument. Confirmation bias is everywhere.

The problem is that both theories (Creationism and Evolution) both have significant snags. They both suffer from the conundrum of genesis; Big Bang vs. God-made, both requiring nothing but faith to believe, and spontaneous life vs. God-made. They both cannot be proven one way or the other. Though certain interpretations of evolution can be proven, these are not the interpretations that are the subject of every debate. The existence of God cannot be proven at all. I therefore have come to the conclusion that debating this topic is an exercise in futility.

[morbidjbyrd]

The problem is that both theories (Creationism and Evolution) both have significant snags. They both suffer from the conundrum of genesis; Big Bang vs. God-made, both requiring nothing but faith to believe, and spontaneous life vs. God-made. They both cannot be proven one way or the other. Though certain interpretations of evolution can be proven, these are not the interpretations that are the subject of every debate. The existence of God cannot be proven at all. I therefore have come to the conclusion that debating this topic is an exercise in futility.

Science is devoid of belief....Religion is engulfed in belief....they are on completely diff spectrum's.
Dont even think of comparing the two.

[rkma]

The problem is that both theories (Creationism and Evolution) both have significant snags. They both suffer from the conundrum of genesis; Big Bang vs. God-made, both requiring nothing but faith to believe, and spontaneous life vs. God-made. They both cannot be proven one way or the other. Though certain interpretations of evolution can be proven, these are not the interpretations that are the subject of every debate. The existence of God cannot be proven at all. I therefore have come to the conclusion that debating this topic is an exercise in futility.

No idea is 100% bullet proof, that doesn't mean some aren't better than others.

[Dacien]

I hope this is a joke and the /sarcasm wasnt strong enough.


If not, then I have a statement for you to help you understand. (Or I hope)

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, even if we dont know to what animal or plant it goes to.
To suggest a transitional fossil is "missing' is absurd, as their are an almost infinite # of changes that have occurred through the fossil record of any animal or plant.

When one finds a new fossil, it only means you have gathered a small piece of an enormous puzzle. The clues you unearth only shows you a small part of the picture, and its so small, that it only allows you to place it within a general area.


@Dacien,
I would love to hear about these gaps...be very specific please.

The problem people wrestle with is that if we had evolved from monkeys, there would be a plethora of hal-man, half-monkey fossils (transitional fossils). Instead, only few have ever been "found", with evidence to suggest they were hoaxes. As I said, there should be an abundance of these fossils if we evolved over very long period of time.

We shouldn't be engaging in this, because we will not agree, plain and simple lol!

---------- Post added 2011-08-29 at 02:28 PM ----------

No idea is 100% bullet proof, that doesn't mean some aren't better than others.

Gravity is bulletproof, evolution, unfortunately, as an intelligent man, is not.

[morbidjbyrd]

The problem people wrestle with is that if we had evolved from monkeys, there would be a plethora of hal-man, half-monkey fossils (transitional fossils). Instead, only few have ever been "found", with evidence to suggest they were hoaxes. As I said, there should be an abundance of these fossils if we evolved over very long period of time.

We shouldn't be engaging in this, because we will not agree, plain and simple lol!

You are dreadfully ignorant on evolution, which I find to be the case for almost everyone in your position.
That is not an insult, its merely a fact.

I highly suggest you read, The Greatest show on Earth by RIchard Dawkins.

[Voij]

The problem people wrestle with is that if we had evolved from monkeys, there would be a plethora of hal-man, half-monkey fossils (transitional fossils). Instead, only few have ever been "found", with evidence to suggest they were hoaxes. As I said, there should be an abundance of these fossils if we evolved over very long period of time.

We shouldn't be engaging in this, because we will not agree, plain and simple lol!

I'm pretty sure I've read time and time again that we did not actually evolve from monkeys, but that we rather had the same ancestors. Which also explains why we didn't find skeletons of monkeys who turned into humans, simply because there were none.
(And we did find "early humans", who were quite similar to apes in stature.)

[rkma]

Gravity is bulletproof, evolution, unfortunately, as an intelligent man, is not.

Gravity is not bullet proof, you're just familiar with the evidence for it, and unfamiliar with the evidence for evolution.

[Dacien]

You are dreadfully ignorant on evolution, which I find to be the case for almost everyone in your position.
That is not an insult, its merely a fact.

I highly suggest you read, The Greatest show on Earth by RIchard Dawkins.

Forgive me for being tongue-in-cheek, but you understood my point, yes? Transitional fossils for our "ancestors closely related to monkeys" do not exist.

[Talokami]

What frightens me the most are the alarming number of people who are willing to believe and listen to these people. Evolution does have gaps and flaws in it, but I have yet to see a scientific or non-Biblical based theory that is just as plausible. Same for global warming, really. Something is happening and to me it seems obvious we're accelerating it but I also understand that the planet has natural heating and cooling phases. That being said, the fact that there is a small continent sized mound of trash floating in the Pacific and the increasingly erratic weather patterns indicate some human interference is occurring.

I understand wanting to bury your head in the sand and take what your opponent says as bullshit but for the love of god back your view up with facts!

[wowmagic]

Two things:
1) there are a lot of ignorant people in the world, and yes, some of them have positions in powerful places.
2) science and our knowledge base are always changing, so don't hate on people for having one viewpoint or another.