Jump to content

Evolution and Politics


aubfaninga

Recommended Posts





  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No, they don't. The tiptoe routine Walker works here is a sad fact of life at the moment. Too many people are more interested in being confident in their preconceptions than they are being correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they don't. The tiptoe routine Walker works here is a sad fact of life at the moment. Too many people are more interested in being confident in their preconceptions than they are being correct.

Mine either. A persons view on science will not sway my vote in either direction. A person standing behind what he believes will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, but if someone insists on a literal six 24-hour day creation it doesn't make me think of them as a very serious person. Likewise if I hear someone talk about evolution as a purely naturalistic phenomenon and their belief that all this 'something' came from 'nothing', then I take them far less seriously.

In terms of it affecting my vote, that largely depends on who the candidate is running against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody too cowardly to answer the question won't get my vote.

I wish that I could fully agree with you but I would be telling a fib. They still get my vote if they are running against Mitt Romney.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

Failing to grasp certain provable concepts, even if you don't chose to connect the gaps in evidence as much as some may and even if you see it as God's handiwork is hardly comparable to snack preferences.

Do you really wonder why Republicans get this question? Have you watched Republican debates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

PZ Myers brought this up the other day:

Politicians are involved in setting educational policy, and may be involved in setting research priorities, or at least funding research. What I want to hear from a politician is that they’re going to get good advice on those subjects before they make decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

PZ Myers brought this up the other day:

Politicians are involved in setting educational policy, and may be involved in setting research priorities, or at least funding research. What I want to hear from a politician is that they're going to get good advice on those subjects before they make decisions.

State and local politicians, yes, but not at the Federal level. At least, they shouldn't be. The President is the Commander in Chief. the Chief Executive, NOT the head master. Obama told the head of NASA , as the number ONE priority, to remind Muslim nations about their great contribution to science. I'm sorry, but why the hell should NASA be in charge of reminding other nations or religions even, of their contributions ? That's not what NASA DOES ! And yet no one thought to call the President out on that matter.

Politicians aren't scientist. Save for maybe Thomas Jefferson, most don't spend their time knee deep in research and observation of the natural world. We should stop being detracted into believing politicians are the elites in all fields. They are public servants, and are tasked to manage public resources and policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

PZ Myers brought this up the other day:

Politicians are involved in setting educational policy, and may be involved in setting research priorities, or at least funding research. What I want to hear from a politician is that they're going to get good advice on those subjects before they make decisions.

State and local politicians, yes, but not at the Federal level. At least, they shouldn't be. The President is the Commander in Chief. the Chief Executive, NOT the head master. Obama told the head of NASA , as the number ONE priority, to remind Muslim nations about their great contribution to science. I'm sorry, but why the hell should NASA be in charge of reminding other nations or religions even, of their contributions ? That's not what NASA DOES ! And yet no one thought to call the President out on that matter.

Politicians aren't scientist. Save for maybe Thomas Jefferson, most don't spend their time knee deep in research and observation of the natural world. We should stop being detracted into believing politicians are the elites in all fields. They are public servants, and are tasked to manage public resources and policy.

I'm not suggesting that. Im suggesting they get sound advice from experts in the relevant fields. And he is involved in the way you suggested. Scott Walker is a governor, after all. I'd rather he not "go with his gut" on educational policy, or worse, get his advice from somebody like Ken Ham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

Technically it is still just a theory but I know what you mean. Its a very good theory to use.

On the other hand, when one ventures down the wormhole of non biological material evolving, it quickly becomes a weak hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

Technically it is still just a theory but I know what you mean. Its a very good theory to use.

On the other hand, when one ventures down the wormhole of non biological material evolving, it quickly becomes a weak hypothesis.

Gravity and electromagnetism are just theories too. :laugh:

It's a very well established theory. The evidence is overwhelming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

PZ Myers brought this up the other day:

Politicians are involved in setting educational policy, and may be involved in setting research priorities, or at least funding research. What I want to hear from a politician is that they're going to get good advice on those subjects before they make decisions.

State and local politicians, yes, but not at the Federal level. At least, they shouldn't be. The President is the Commander in Chief. the Chief Executive, NOT the head master. Obama told the head of NASA , as the number ONE priority, to remind Muslim nations about their great contribution to science. I'm sorry, but why the hell should NASA be in charge of reminding other nations or religions even, of their contributions ? That's not what NASA DOES ! And yet no one thought to call the President out on that matter.

Politicians aren't scientist. Save for maybe Thomas Jefferson, most don't spend their time knee deep in research and observation of the natural world. We should stop being detracted into believing politicians are the elites in all fields. They are public servants, and are tasked to manage public resources and policy.

I'm not suggesting that. Im suggesting they get sound advice from experts in the relevant fields. And he is involved in the way you suggested. Scott Walker is a governor, after all. I'd rather he not "go with his gut" on educational policy, or worse, get his advice from somebody like Ken Ham.

Teaching evolution as a science is productice. Teaching evolution as fact to how we came into existance is dangerous considering it has never been tested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

PZ Myers brought this up the other day:

Politicians are involved in setting educational policy, and may be involved in setting research priorities, or at least funding research. What I want to hear from a politician is that they're going to get good advice on those subjects before they make decisions.

State and local politicians, yes, but not at the Federal level. At least, they shouldn't be. The President is the Commander in Chief. the Chief Executive, NOT the head master. Obama told the head of NASA , as the number ONE priority, to remind Muslim nations about their great contribution to science. I'm sorry, but why the hell should NASA be in charge of reminding other nations or religions even, of their contributions ? That's not what NASA DOES ! And yet no one thought to call the President out on that matter.

Politicians aren't scientist. Save for maybe Thomas Jefferson, most don't spend their time knee deep in research and observation of the natural world. We should stop being detracted into believing politicians are the elites in all fields. They are public servants, and are tasked to manage public resources and policy.

I'm not suggesting that. Im suggesting they get sound advice from experts in the relevant fields. And he is involved in the way you suggested. Scott Walker is a governor, after all. I'd rather he not "go with his gut" on educational policy, or worse, get his advice from somebody like Ken Ham.

Teaching evolution as a science is productice. Teaching evolution as fact to how we came into existance is dangerous considering it has never been tested.

It's one of the best supported theories known to man.

And it has been observed in real time. Google Richard Lenski.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

Technically it is still just a theory but I know what you mean. Its a very good theory to use.

On the other hand, when one ventures down the wormhole of non biological material evolving, it quickly becomes a weak hypothesis.

Gravity and electromagnetism are just theories too. :laugh:/>

It's a very well established theory. The evidence is overwhelming.

Technically the theory of gravity is still just a theory.

You were laughing so hard that you missed that I encourage evolution as a tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't find anyone more adamant about the fact of evolution than myself, and I do cringe a bit when I hear some speak of it as " only " a theory, but when it comes to politics, what difference does it make ?

If a politician likes almonds more than pistachios, are you more or less likely to identify and then vote for them.

Dodge a question about evolution, get branded as " anti-science ". Confuse the planet Mars for the moon, and no one bats an eye.

And why does it seem only Republicans get these questions ?

Technically it is still just a theory but I know what you mean. Its a very good theory to use.

On the other hand, when one ventures down the wormhole of non biological material evolving, it quickly becomes a weak hypothesis.

Gravity and electromagnetism are just theories too. :laugh:

It's a very well established theory. The evidence is overwhelming.

Technically the theory of gravity is still just a theory.

You were laughing so hard that you missed that I encourage evolution as a tool.

And apples will start falling upward eventually too. You're equivocating the theory with its colloquial meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll not get into yet another whizzing match over how evolution hasn't been tested or not. It has.

Point is, POLITICIANS aren't the be all end all arbiters of deciding this sort of stuff. Nor should they be. Now, they may have a say in who heads up organizations like NASA, but their personal opinions on matters like this shouldn't matter all that much.

I mean , if a person who thinks the Earth is flat gets elected, we've got a lot more problems , and that's on everyone else, not the politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And apples will start falling upward eventually too. You're equivocating the theory with its colloquial meaning.

You are taking a defensive posture when I have no faults with using it. The theory you are defending has evolved in recent history and will evolve again. Why? Because it must agree with the >>>LAW<<< of thermodynamics!!! In it's current state it does not jive so it will have to change. It has not yet adapted to the LAWS governing it's environment.

You sound confident so this should be easy for ya.

With what we know of our known universe, what is the probability of the controlled environment necessary to sustain life?

Now the probability of all the necessary building blocks to be present in this controlled environment for life to be born?

Once non biological material makes this evolutionary leap into life, what are the odds of it thriving in this environment since it has no genetic information on how to survive in said environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll not get into yet another whizzing match over how evolution hasn't been tested or not. It has.

Point is, POLITICIANS aren't the be all end all arbiters of deciding this sort of stuff. Nor should they be. Now, they may have a say in who heads up organizations like NASA, but their personal opinions on matters like this shouldn't matter all that much.

I mean , if a person who thinks the Earth is flat gets elected, we've got a lot more problems , and that's on everyone else, not the politician.

How about a "hollow earth" president? LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And apples will start falling upward eventually too. You're equivocating the theory with its colloquial meaning.

You are taking a defensive posture when I have no faults with using it. The theory you are defending has evolved in recent history and will evolve again. Why? Because it must agree with the >>>LAW<<< of thermodynamics!!! In it's current state it does not jive so it will have to change. It has not yet adapted to the LAWS governing it's environment.

You sound confident so this should be easy for ya.

With what we know of our known universe, what is the probability of the controlled environment necessary to sustain life?

Now the probability of all the necessary building blocks to be present in this controlled environment for life to be born?

Once non biological material makes this evolutionary leap into life, what are the odds of it thriving in this environment since it has no genetic information on how to survive in said environment?

It will be easy, but you'll have to give me a little while. Got a donuts for daddies thing to attend with my oldest. I'll parse it in an hour or so.

These are arguments I've personally refuted many times before. I'd suggest you bone up on your physics, too. The theory of evolution and abiogenesis, which you touched on, conforms to the second law to a T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And apples will start falling upward eventually too. You're equivocating the theory with its colloquial meaning.

You are taking a defensive posture when I have no faults with using it. The theory you are defending has evolved in recent history and will evolve again. Why? Because it must agree with the >>>LAW<<< of thermodynamics!!! In it's current state it does not jive so it will have to change. It has not yet adapted to the LAWS governing it's environment.

You sound confident so this should be easy for ya.

With what we know of our known universe, what is the probability of the controlled environment necessary to sustain life?

Now the probability of all the necessary building blocks to be present in this controlled environment for life to be born?

Once non biological material makes this evolutionary leap into life, what are the odds of it thriving in this environment since it has no genetic information on how to survive in said environment?

It will be easy, but you'll have to give me a little while. Got a donuts for daddies thing to attend with my oldest. I'll parse it in an hour or so.

These are arguments I've personally refuted many times before. I'd suggest you bone up on your physics, too. The theory of evolution and

THE HYPOTHESIS OF

abiogenesis, which you touched on, conforms to the second law to a T.

Fixed that for ya.

I have time. Enjoy your daddy time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...