Sic et Non
FollowPatheos Mormon on:
A geocentric system
As far as these people are concerned, Copernicus and Kepler might as well never have lived:
I think that science has at long last identified the core constituency of the modern Democratic Party.
Posted from Waikoloa, Hawai’i
Perhaps they over-surveyed Tea Party members?
“Tea party Republicans are now the only group of Americans who think the Earth is not warming, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, with just 25 percent of tea party Republicans saying global warming is happening. By contrast, 67 percent of all Americans say there is evidence climate change is underway, including 61 percent of non-tea party Republicans.”
It’s worse than that. 51% of Tea Party Republicans don’t even believe in evolution: http://www.christianpost.com/news/half-of-tea-party-rejects-climate-change-and-evolution-56286/
The real life implications of this are disturbing. Especially in a time when American students are falling way behind many countries in science and math.
I am not happy with the YEC movement in the conservative Christian world (in fact I’m part of a homeschooling blog, one major goal of which is to point out that Ken Ham does not own homeschooling like he thinks he does), but conservatives do not have a corner on the anti-science market. Sadly, leftists have just as much trouble with anti-science sentiments; it’s just that they pick different causes, like belief in crystals/homeopathy/woo and being against nuclear power. Worst of all is the anti-vaccination movement–which is arguably the single most damaging anti-science belief today, though anti-”GMO” is giving it a run for its money. I think those are both growing in conservative circles too. Either way, both the left and right have about equal levels of anti-science belief. (Certainly on my FB feed, it’s the super-lefties who regularly post things to make me pull my hair out. That’s some excellent data for you right there.)
Scientific-knowledge as a proxy for a political litmus test is the only frightenening thing here. That these Machiavellian political power grab “tools” get used by people who are well meaning is really concerning.
Let’s spin this on its head. 100% of the founding Fathers didn’t know about evolution or the big bang. 100% of them positively believed things which science now discredits. Their advice on the nature of government is still just as important.
99.9999999% of humanity has never known these things you deem (apparently) crucial. I’m not saying modern additions to humanities “knowledgebase” aren’t important, but when the advice of Aristotle or Plato would be disregarded off hand because they don’t believe in xyz, THAT is truly disturbing.
Judge a philosophy on its merits. Not on what other bits of knowledge its adherents possess or lack.
Again if it wasn’t clear, my point is that I’m disturbed and concerned for the future of a society where we have to attack our ideological opponents in a win-at-all-costs way that seeks to discredit them for not being pure in other areas. It’s almost a form of dehumanization. it reduces someone who holds another view to being unworthy of consideration.
Thing about why all these polls are being made? it’s to draw conclusions about an out-of-favor group and encourage derision and rejection. Please, as a disciple of Christ, don’t make yourself a part of that.
If you disagree with a philosophy, say so and back it up. Looking for an end-run around an argument to “win”, while at the same time looking for any potential or perceived flaw in your “opponent” is what is really disturbing.
We will not be polarized to the extent of violence in our society by the “real life implications” of what bits of scientific observations we have or lack. But attacking, discrediting others will most certainly contribute to the polarizing and potential future violence from others who deem their brethren as less-than-worthy of consideration.
“Fewer than half of the respondents – 48 per cent – are aware that humans evolved from earlier species of animals and just 39 percent answered correctly that ‘the universe began with a huge explosion’.”
Elementary and secondary education for the vast majority of Americans has been in the hands of members of the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers for half a century. The NEA and AFT are labor unions, meaning they are subsidiaries of the Democratic Party. Their members not only contribute to Democrat candidates and causes, they also have three months of summer on essentially paid vacation when their members form the core of volunteer campaign workers.
In return, the Democraic Party ensures that the primary purpose of public schools is to employ teachers. If improving education quality would mean having fewer public school teachers, it is blocked. That has been the case when systems have been proposed for charter schools with non-union faculty, or for vouchers that can be used at private schools selected by parents.
Additionally, the Democratc Party has adopted certain doctrines that form an orthodoxy that is taught through its education union constituency. That includes positions on human sexual behavior and morality, on basic economics, on the history of America, on socialism and communism, on religion, on “race”, on real risk versus benefit, on environmental issues. When Democrat union members teach science, they teach students to believe in pronouncements of authority figures, not to learn the skills of analysis and mathematics to enable them to think scientifically and objectively.
The notion that Americans should listen to the pronouncement of the president that the scientific debate on global warming is over, that disagreement is not allowed by the government, is a profoundly anti-scientific idea. But it is clearly in the interest of the party of “We will do the thinking for you” to promote such beliefs, and ignore the evidence of their own thermometers, that the rising trend of average global temperatures has stopped rising for fifteen years, contrary to the computer models of the government-sponsored climate alarmists.
The second source of scientifically illiterate people in the US is immigration of poorly educated people who work at the bottom of the economy. Note that many of the smartest people in the US are immigrants who came to the US for high tech work or gradate school, but they have had high hurdles to overcome to become permanent resdents, versus illegal immigrants who avoid the paperwork and the long lines and are now being offered sanctuary via executive order.
When is science settled? In your estimation, and I would agree, almost never. But at some point, the preponderance of evidence supports a given result beyond reasonable criticism. I believe this to be the President’s position as well as that of leading climate scientists.
A corollary is smoking and cancer. There is no experimental evidence that smoking causes long cancer (except in rats). It’s all correlational, yet there little doubt that this is the case (although the tobacco industries have tried mightily to cast doubt on these findings, much like those who have a vested interest in denying global warming).
Recent survey found that about 50% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans believe in astrology.
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.