Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
THE MATRIX

Why the Anti-Science Creationist Movement Is

91 posts in this topic

My link

They want to wipe out all the findings of hundreds of years of scientific investigation and have taken to schools, the courts and political leaders to get things done.

A few weeks ago, Jon Huntsman torpedoed his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination by making the following announcement: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

It's a pathetic commentary on the anti-intellectualism rampant in American politics that this is newsworthy. A major-party candidate announces that he doesn't deny a foundational theory of modern science! In fact, given the political atmosphere in the Republican party, it's not just newsworthy but a daring act: polls have shown that almost 70 percent of Republicans deny evolution.

Huntsman is clearly trying to position himself as the moderate candidate. But while that strategy might play well in the general election, it won't do him any good unless he can get the Republican nomination. And to win that nomination, he has to get past a huge obstacle: a solid bloc of Republican primary voters who are emphatically anti-science. This isn't an exaggeration for polemical effect; it's the plain truth. The modern Republican party has made a fervent rejection of scientific consensus its defining attribute -- both on evolution and climate change, as well as in other fields -- and Huntsman's refusal to submit to party orthodoxy is likely a fatal blow to his chances.

But opposition to climate change is something new in the Republican platform. As recently as a few years ago, both Mitt Romney and John McCain supported cap-and-trade laws, and Newt Gingrich appeared in pro-environment ads with Nancy Pelosi. The party's rejection of climate science is fairly new, and probably comes from its increasing dependence on campaign cash from dirty-energy barons like the Koch brothers.

By contrast, the Republican party's denial of evolution is much older and more grassroots in nature, dating at least to when the national parties traded places during the civil-rights era. The conservative South, in addition to its other charming qualities, has a long history of passing laws hostile to science, from Tennessee's Butler Act, the 1925 law prohibiting the teaching of evolution that led to the Scopes trial, to Louisiana's 1981 Balanced Treatment Act, which decreed that "creation science" had to be given an equal share of classroom time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically just your usual anti-Republican rantings? There are a lot of Democrats who believe in Creationsism you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wing and left wing politicians ARE THE SAME **EDIT** in the United States of America. They are both right wing capitalist pigs.

**The profanity filters are there for a reason, David.**

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of Democrats who believe in Creationsism you know.

It's not about what one believes. Irrespective of one's belief, creationism has no solid ground in science and hence should not be studied in science/biology class. On the other hand, it can (and should) be studied as part of theology / history etc class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wing and left wing politicians ARE THE SAME **EDIT** in the United States of America. They are both right wing capitalist pigs.

**The profanity filters are there for a reason, David.**

You would not be on the Internet without capitalism David, those "pigs" are responsible for our modern conveniences... You know your car, refrigerator, bottled water, burgers, cell phones. Non of it gets innovated without capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can believe in creationism and still believe in science, technology and climate change. God gave us a brain, did he not expect us to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think its dangerous to hide knowledge from people and stop people finding out about science, but instead believe things that science has proved wrong.

my friend posted a link on facebook to a christian website for children and some of it was really really really really really wrong-like saying the world is 6000 years old, fossils are from animals that died in the flood, neanderthals are just people who were ill from "flood related rickets" i think it said, and also that if there is an atheist in town you must tell a parent or priest and stay away from them. :wacko:

i think its important children know proper scientific facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why elements of both theories can't be true. Something must have kicked everything off so why not some kind of God. As for the Bible stories...well you try explaining evolution to people who still aren't sure fire is a good thing or not.

"Bah! Ok I made everything in six days and on the seventh I rested because I got tired of explaining things!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A phrase most famously used by Supreme Court Justice Black in the case of Everson v. Board of Education. In discussing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Justice Black said that the clause erected a "wall of separation between church and state." He explained that this means, among other things, that the government cannot participate in the affairs of a religious group, set up a church, aid or prefer one religion over another, or aid or prefer religion over nonreligion.

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/separation-of-church-and-state-term.html

Well, as I see it the church participates a heck of a lot in governmental affairs.

Should the church be tax exempt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wing and left wing politicians ARE THE SAME **EDIT** in the United States of America. They are both right wing capitalist pigs.

**The profanity filters are there for a reason, David.**

Slander isn't an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about what one believes. Irrespective of one's belief, creationism has no solid ground in science and hence should not be studied in science/biology class. On the other hand, it can (and should) be studied as part of theology / history etc class.

I agree, but it annoys me how this issued is used politically by the left to attack Republicans when there are hundreds of thousands of good Democrats who believe the exact same thing. Republican Jesus = crazy. Democrat Jesus = good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your just spitting out anti republican junk huh? Typical lakers fan if you ask me :geek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can believe in creationism and still believe in science, technology and climate change. God gave us a brain, did he not expect us to use it.

Lol, when you use your brain you realize where the notion of god comes from and why theists are theists (non logical thought processes). You don't believe in science, science is not a fairy tale, science is based on facts, a fact is real weather you believe in it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, when you use your brain you realize where the notion of god comes from and why theists are theists (non logical thought processes). You don't believe in science, science is not a fairy tale, science is based on facts, a fact is real weather you believe in it or not.

Funny what you say: Einstein made most of his factual discoveries while sleeping, Cardanius was talking to angels. Those are only two exemples that comes to mind (just woke up). You make science appear to be a cut and dry thing whereas Tesla had vision of what he discovered. I do not believe in any religion but you can't remove spiritual experiences from science. Those who do aren't scientist, they're teachers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think it matters what some nutter group is trying to accomplish. Even if they did manage to somehow overwhelm common sense fossils will still keep coming out of the ground.

The fossil record baby, you cannot deny it. I can crack and creationist over the head with a transitional fossil and ask, what's all this then? No amount of mumbo jumbo can equal the direct proof for evolution, although many stick their heads in the sand, the proof is overwhelming. It can even be observed in mitochondrial DNA. No matter how many books they burn, people have brains, and after the silliness settles down, someone will build another microscope and we will be off and away yet again on the path of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A phrase most famously used by Supreme Court Justice Black in the case of Everson v. Board of Education. In discussing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Justice Black said that the clause erected a "wall of separation between church and state." He explained that this means, among other things, that the government cannot participate in the affairs of a religious group, set up a church, aid or prefer one religion over another, or aid or prefer religion over nonreligion.

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/separation-of-church-and-state-term.html

Well, as I see it the church participates a heck of a lot in governmental affairs.

Should the church be tax exempt?

Yes, to tax churches would be far too much entanglement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically just your usual anti-Republican rantings? There are a lot of Democrats who believe in Creationsism you know.

Creationism is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but it annoys me how this issued is used politically by the left to attack Republicans when there are hundreds of thousands of good Democrats who believe the exact same thing. Republican Jesus = crazy. Democrat Jesus = good.

It is annoying to see someone try to minimize the problem this way. It has nothing to do with Jesus or religious beliefs. It has to do with willful ignorance and trying to take us back to the dark ages. You can be religious, be a christian, and still understand evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think it matters what some nutter group is trying to accomplish. Even if they did manage to somehow overwhelm common sense fossils will still keep coming out of the ground.

The fossil record baby, you cannot deny it. I can crack and creationist over the head with a transitional fossil and ask, what's all this then? No amount of mumbo jumbo can equal the direct proof for evolution, although many stick their heads in the sand, the proof is overwhelming. It can even be observed in mitochondrial DNA. No matter how many books they burn, people have brains, and after the silliness settles down, someone will build another microscope and we will be off and away yet again on the path of truth.

This is kind of scary that you think destroying all of our progress would be okay. I am to the point that I will not vote for anyone who says they do not believe in evolution. It is a real sticking point for me. Unfortunately almost all republican candidates say that these days and I do not always like the democratic candidates. We really need a moderate third party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

These creationist politicians are a real problem. These are the people make the laws for our country and some of them believe that the world is only 6000 years old, that evolution isn't true, and that the end times may happen in their lifetimes.

It is frightening to think that these delusional people are the ones in charge of our government.

Here's a interesting tidbit : The Reason Rally

Edited by Imaginarynumber1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but it annoys me how this issued is used politically by the left to attack Republicans when there are hundreds of thousands of good Democrats who believe the exact same thing. Republican Jesus = crazy. Democrat Jesus = good.

The big difference is with the exception of a few, the Democrats do not make God an integral part of their election platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that the anti-science aspect of politics has made me contemplate things that I honestly feel awkward having to consider.

Take, for instance, the recent proposition from Wyoming to purchase an aircraft carrier for emergency events beyond the capacity of the Federal government to handle. Once upon a time, I would have considered that at best a joke, at worst utter idiocy.

These days, however, I considered that the proponents may actually have considered a Noah's Ark type of scenario, and to my sheer horror...I was not able to entirely dismiss the possibility.

I don't even have any evidence that the proponents were Christians, let alone the fundamentalist kind that would be required to formally propose such a thing, but the sheer existence of the anti-science movement and its pervasiveness has led me to actually have to account for it when considering political situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kind of scary that you think destroying all of our progress would be okay. I am to the point that I will not vote for anyone who says they do not believe in evolution. It is a real sticking point for me. Unfortunately almost all republican candidates say that these days and I do not always like the democratic candidates. We really need a moderate third party.

I do not think it would be OK, what I was trying to say is that even if they did succeed, it would not last forever. People can and will think, this will prevail no matter how many times the human race has to pick itself up and dust itself off. I do not think we even need a third party, we need tighter restrictions on who can hold power, candidates should be chosen academically, not by popularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that the anti-science aspect of politics has made me contemplate things that I honestly feel awkward having to consider.

Take, for instance, the recent proposition from Wyoming to purchase an aircraft carrier for emergency events beyond the capacity of the Federal government to handle. Once upon a time, I would have considered that at best a joke, at worst utter idiocy.

These days, however, I considered that the proponents may actually have considered a Noah's Ark type of scenario, and to my sheer horror...I was not able to entirely dismiss the possibility.

I don't even have any evidence that the proponents were Christians, let alone the fundamentalist kind that would be required to formally propose such a thing, but the sheer existence of the anti-science movement and its pervasiveness has led me to actually have to account for it when considering political situations.

Politicians of Wyoming dismissed the bill few days ago which is a good thing. Now to have some sort of a plan for an eventual doomsday is not as silly as most people think but bying a aircraft carrier wouldn't be of much use in the Rockies where there are more chance of a fault line opening up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the reason behind it that I worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.