The Democrats anti science scam

Hank Campbell:

'Creationism' is a confusing term. In science, militant atheists will intentionally call all religious people 'creationists' and then complain creationists are anti-science, even about the religious people who are not anti-science at all. 'Young Earth' creationists think we were created in whole form 6,000 or so years ago and believe paleontology and biology are some test of faith but commingling the terms is intellectually dishonest. Politics makes even otherwise smart scientists do bad things.

It's the same scam progressive militants pulled regarding 'stem cell research'. No Republican had objected to 40 years of 'stem cell research' but when Bush restricted federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to existing lines, Republicans were supposedly 'against stem cell research'. Generally, when a scientist uses a political term, you need to be extra-skeptical about how they are framing their data. With political pundits we already do that.

I don't actually know any young Earth creationists or anti-science religious people, though I know a lot of religious people. I know anti-science religious people are out there, it may just be the circles I run in(1). I can go to Seattle and find more anti-science, anti-religious people (25% of kids in one Seattle school have parents who refuse to get them vaccines) than I can find anti-science religious people in Mobile.

Apparently a lot of anti-science people are out there - if you frame the question the right way. But they are Democrats too. A recent Fox News article highlighted some comments by Texas Governor Rick Perry where he said evolution has 'some gaps in it' - a technically true statement but we all know what he was getting at; religion was the secret sauce and the science was invented to try and have an alternative view. Gallup figures in that same article noted only 8% of Republicans believe evolution was solely science - no God at any point, i.e., atheists. But only 16% of people overall believe that, which means a whole boatload of Democrats believe it too.

...
We can see evolution in our everyday life, but it is much harder to see it in the past and there have been some recent challenges to Darwinism in the scientific community. The automobile has evolved over time to be much more efficient, safe and comfortable. I can remember what a big deal it was when we finally got a car with air conditioning. Now it is hard to imagine a car without it.

I do not see the anti science campaign by Democrats gaining much traction. As the author notes what Gov. Perry said was technically correct. Besides he oversees funds for all sorts of scientific research which he is eager to use to create jobs.

Comments

  1. Brent8:41 PM

    Speaking of commingling terms--"The automobile has evolved over time"? The changes to an automobile made by human designers intentionally, using their skills to improve the quality, has absolutely no bearing on the topic of Darwinism. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is not change driven by chance (i.e. random mutations), it is an intelligent design.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more