Why are they afraid of it?
Is it because their base is suspicious of anyone who accepts scientific facts?
I don't get it.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was afraid to answer a question about his acceptance of Evolution as a scientific fact. And he was a BIOLOGY SCHOLAR at Brown University! It's madness! And it appears his fear of losing an uneducated base is the reason he is willing to deny what every biologist understands and accepts:
Evolution is real. It's not a matter of "believing" in it, since Evolution is not dogma, it's scientifically provable. If it's a matter of Jindal's fear that religious people will abandon him and his party, I've got news for him: the Catholic Church accepts evolution as scientific fact, as do many other Christian religions, with the exception of the extreme evangelical/fundamentalists. Shouldn't a "scholar" be concerned about bringing his followers into the light instead of keeping them in the dark?
Apparently not. His political ambitions trump science and reality. Pity. But thankfully we know he'll never be president.
From Crooks an Liars:
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal dodged three questions on Tuesday about whether he personally believes the theory of evolution explains the presence of complex life on Earth.
"The reality is I'm not an evolutionary biologist," the Republican governor and possible 2016presidential hopeful told reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
"What I believe as a father and a husband is that local schools should make decisions on how they teach," he said. "And we can talk about Common Core and why I don't believe in a national curriculum. I think local school districts should make decisions about what should be taught in their classroom. I want my kids to be exposed to the best science, the best critical thinking..."
From The Raw Story: "In 2008, Jindal was instrumental in the passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act, which allowed science teachers in public schools to veer away from the established science in biology courses. Under the Act, teachers can use the Bible, creationist tracts and other literature to 'supplement' their teaching about how life evolved on Earth."
That would be like having astrologists "supplement" what astro-physicists teach their students about the cosmos!
Creationism is not science, it's religion.
And it isn't just Gov. Jindal who's willing to make a fool of himself over this subject. One would think a doctor would know better than to say these things in public (unless he too is looking to keep a religious base happy and ignorant for his political ambitions.)
Ben Carson: Evolution A Myth Because 'God Can Create Anything At Any Point In Time’
From American Conservative: "Carson has not kept his views on biology and geology secret. But since he’s new to the national scene, many will find this a baffling revelation. As in: how can this brilliant scientific mind entertain an outlandish theory that virtually none of his peers shares? Or as Washington Post reporter Valerie Strauss implies: how can such an accomplished medical professional reject 'Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is the central principle that animates modern biology, uniting all biological fields under one theoretical tent, and which virtually all modern scientists agree is true?' ”
How can this "brilliant scientific mind" entertain an outlandish theory that virtually none of his peers shares?
I'd say because Dr. Carson doesn't have a "brilliant scientific mind," but rather a brilliant ability to perform intricate mechanical surgeries. And that doesn't require a knowledge of scientific fact or theories.
The geek who helps me with my pc probably doesn't know the physics of gallium nitride, "a binary III/V direct bandgap semiconductor commonly used in bright light-emitting diodes since the 1990s. The compound is a very hard material that has a Wurtzite crystal structure. Its wide band gap of 3.4 eV affords it special properties for applications in optoelectronic, high-power and high-frequency devices. For example, GaN is the substrate which makes violet (405 nm) laser diodes possible, without use of nonlinear optical frequency-doubling."
And my favorite geek doesn't have to know that in order to convert my Microsoft Works 7 files to my new Microsoft Word software.
Dr. Ben Carson may be a brilliant surgeon, but he's not a brilliant politician. He's not going to be POTUS. Ever.
His denial of scientific facts has guaranteed that. But that isn't the only reason. He's said things that are goofy:
"The co-director of Johns Hopkins University's sexuality studies program is speaking out against his colleague Dr. Ben Carson's recent comments comparing supporters of marriage equality to members of NAMBLA and practitioners of bestiality.
"I don't think most people at Hopkins think what he says on this subject matters," Professor Todd Shepard, co-director of the university's Program for the Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, said in a statement to Media Matters.
"They make him look nasty, petty, and ill-informed. It doesn't tell us anything about his amazing abilities as a surgeon. It does remind us, however, that those abilities do not mean we should listen to what he says in any other domain."
Please go HERE and read "There's a Method to Jindal's Madness" by Nancy LeTourneau @Horizons.
24 comments:
It's not just a matter of ignorance. The fundamentalist base has a massive emotional and psychological investment in their pre-scientific, folkloric view of human origins, just as the libertarians have a strong emotional investment in denying anthropogenic global warming despite the scientific consensus, since that problem seems to defy solution by market-based means alone.
Jindal is like a cowardly parent unwilling to make a petulant child face the fact that Santa doesn't exist.
Ultimately the whole country will pay the price, when a generation kept largely ignorant about real science grows up to compete with their contemporaries elsewhere who have not been similarly disadvantaged. Even Iran teaches evolution in its schools with no if, ands, or buts.
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not."
Those words strike fear into the ignorant hearts of evolution deniers.
Re: Not accepting evolution as fact:
"This takes Bull-Shit to a whole new level!"
Religion survives best in darkness.
When your base is dumb as a rock, you have to appear no smarted that the smartest rock.
and when was Obama drilled on Evolution during the campaign?
His intelligence isn't what won him elections,it was political manipulation
You can also bet he never ran on A Global Warming platform when he was trying to appeal to "his" uneducated base of Baptists in Chicago.
FYI- Ben Carson is quite intelligent if you actually get passed the one thing you disagree with.
"...fact that Santa doesn't exist."
What kind of foul nonsense is that????? Next you will tell me that the Easter Bunny does NOT lay chocolate eggs!!!!
Here's why you won't see been in the 2016 primaries:
"Per a CNN poll released on Friday, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee leads all potential 2016 Republican Presidential candidates in the key state of Iowa. The poll shows that 21% of Republicans in the state support Huckabee among a crowded field of possible contenders. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) placed second with 12%. Others like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) only managed single digits."
It's going to be quite a field but unless the game is to be as outrageous as possible the right wing religious probably want the slimier more experienced Huckabee.
Uncle Sugar may be back.
Lisa, what do you mean Obama was not drilled on evolution during the campaign?
If he was, aren;t you sure he would have answered that he believed in the science that supports evolution?
There is no serious science that supports creationism in the biblical 6000 year old earth sense.
What is the political manipulation you speak of? Why is it a Democrat can never win an election outright in the eyes of conservatives? Are you guys so sure that a majority favors your position so any failure by a conservative to be a liberal is the result of cheating. vote stealing or manipulation?
Candidate Barack Obama went to Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago. It was not a baptist church and by what objective standard are you able to declare his base of support in Chicago, "uneducated.?"
If you want to refute what Shaw has posted about Dr. Carson, why don't you do that instead of insulting others?
Dave where have you been for th last 2 elections? You didn't see the relentless character assignations of conservatives candidates by the media and the slobbering love affair they had for Obama? He could have been an axe murderer and the media would have made sure he was "the guy".
Hillary will be another one the media puts up on a pedestal even though her only claim to fame was riding the coattails of her husband.
By the way Dave I see a lot of insults here directed at Ben Carson and those who might support him as Jerry says that Ben Carson's voting base is dumb as a rock? Because of one single issue?
I heard more people vote for Obama because of his color. That isn't a very intelligent reason to vote for someone.Larry King even said his 5 year old son wished he were black. This was the slobbering media we had when he ran.
and FYI being conservative does not mean you are necessarily religious.
There are other conservative principles people would vote for over liberal policy.
Lisa: "You didn't see the relentless character assignations of conservatives candidates by the media..."
Lisa, my friend, you're either blind or willfully ignoring how "the media" endlessly played the tape of Obama's former minister, Rev. Wright. And also Obama's words about "clinging to thier guns and religion.." that were caught on tape.
In the 2012 election cycle, you've forgotten the media endlessly playing the "you didn't build that" out of context.
Also, you have conveniently forgotten how the media kept the BENGHAZI! tragedy before the public.
You are p.o.'d because despite those and other examples of criticism from the media, Mr. Obama was elected and re-elected, so therefore, your thinking goes, the media favored him and were meanies to his opponents.
Lisa, one person here said something unflattering about Dr. Carson? If you bother to read my remarks, I have criticized his refusal to acknowledge a scientific fact, and that's all.
On your blog your pals make disgusting, demeaning racist remarks about President Obama AND HIS WIFE on a daily basis (not to mention the personal slurs and insults about me that you allow an giggle over). So I wish you would not make yourself look silly by criticising people here on that matter. Thanks.
Here's a little information for you: Millions of white people and millions of non-white Americans voted for Mr. Obama because they wanted him to be president. Not because of the color of his skin. Your complaint to the contrary is nothing more than sour grape and an inability to see reality.
You believe African-Americans voted for Mr. Obama only because he's black, even though anyone with any knowledge about voting blocs knows that 98% of the African-American community always votes Democratic.
Are conservatives all white supremacists because they voted for the white guys in the last two elections?
You're twisting logic to fit your flawed premise: That Mr. Obama was elected only because he's black.
BTW, Larry King is hardly a person I'd go to for factual information on voting preferences of the American public.
And I'm pretty sure you meant assassinations, not assignations, unless you were referring to Mark Sanford and Newt Gingrich and their sexual escapades.
Shaw when you mention the "media" you are mentioning 2% of it.
Never saw Katie Couric ask Obama where he gets all his information and what he reads,never saw Charles Gibson look down his nose at Obama asking him about the Bush Doctrine.
Or people like George Stephanopoulos even having to come to his rescue
those Greek Columns really made him look presidential didn't it?
Lisa, what you're forgetting or deliberately not understanding is that Sarah Palin was an unknown politician when McCain picked her as his vp. By that time, Mr. Obama had been in the public eye for MONTHS, even YEARS. No one had ever heard of Palin and no one knew anything about her.
Asking someone to name newspapers they read is hardly a "gotcha" question, unless that person doesn't read newspapers, which was pretty evident in Palin's case.
Palin should have known what the Bush Doctrine was, every pol knew it, what was her excuse? Bush was the leader of HER POLITICAL PARTY. She should have known something as basic as that.
Your resentment over the fact that the American people chose Mr. Obama over the GOP ticket is evident, and instead of acknowledging the fact that the American people made their choice, you stick to the idea that Americans were bamboozled into voting for the black guy.
That may soothe your hurt feelings, but it is not reality. And here's why: Americans voted for Mr. Obama AGAIN even though the GOP ran a vp candidate who had more of a grasp of national and international issues than did Palin. And Romney was certainly better grounded than was the excitable and often goofy McCain. You have to come to terms with the fact that Americans of all colors and ethnic backgrounds wanted Mr. Obanma and Mr. Biden, NOT Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan.
You seem to believe that when a Democrat is elected, the American people are stupid, but when a GOPer is elected, they suddenly become smart.
I imagine you believe the country went through a period of unprecedented intellectual brilliance when they voted twice for Dubya?
That's cute
Lisa
The biggest issue facing conservatives is what shaw pointed out. 98% of African American's vote democrat. The remainder want the free stuff.
It is surprising that conservatives don't like Obama because they are racist but liberals are not racist if the dislike Carson.
What is that?
you act like he won by a huge margin.
How can you honestly believe that black people didn't vote for him because of his color? They thought he was going to pay for their gas and their mortgage
You don't believe many of them felt the same way?
Shaw you are too smart to not actually believe that
oh and sorry hearing about Obama and knowing who he was were 2 different things
Lisa and Ralph, this is the last comment to both of you on the issues you brought up that have nothing to do with this post on conservatives and science.
ralph, when discussing Dr. Carson, no one here calls him names like conservative commenters on Lisa's and other blogs call President Obama e.g. "Ovomit," "Obongo," "Obummer," "Commie," "Marxist," etc. That's one issue.
Number 2 issue: No one here, or anywhere I can discover, depicts Dr. Carson as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, or with a noose around his neck, or compares him and his wife to gorillas and other primates, or photo shops him and his wife as a pimp and a whore, when they criticize his speeches and ideas.
Conservative pols and bloggers do that. AND THAT'S WHY WE LABEL THEM RACISTS. You and Lisa pretend this doesn't happen and you and your friends get all huffy and indignant when we point out to you that when you insult black people with racist images and disgusting names, THAT'S WHEN YOU EARN THE LABEL "RACIST."
Got that?
The rest of your complaints are all regurgitated rightwing talking points about giving people "free stuff." You both need to get past that bunk and learn to think for yourselves, or at the very least do some hard work in research, so that you can discover you're being had.
Lisa, you've posted things on your blog that have been proved to be false, and yet you did not retract them, but stubbornly made excuses for keeping lies about Mr. Obama on your blog. That's your choice; it's your blog.
Your accusations about why the African-American community voted for Mr. Obama is based on what? Can you give us some actual facts instead of presumptions by conservative pundits and FAUX NOOZ talking hairdos?
Also, does voting all your life for white conservative American males for president make you an anti-woman, white supremacist? Or just someone who supports the GOP platform?
That's something to think about, I don't need an answer.
This post is about conservative politicians and their anti-science statements. No more highjacking the thread.
Thanks.
Perhaps another question is in order:
"What is it about Conservative politicians and military intervention?" To rephrase: The Wrong Wing is in a rage over Obama sending 3,000 troops to West Africa to fight EBOLA but not 3,000 troops on the ground in Iraq to fight ISIS.
The Wrong Wing can envisage building a wall on our southern border to keep out impoverished and traumatized children but do nothing to stop a rapidly mutating pandemic ravaging the largest continent on the planet.
Here's Lindsey Graham: "... this is ISIL versus mankind!"
Former rabies mouth Allen West: "... but I suppose fighting Ebola is easier for a faux Commander-in-Chief than to fight a real enemy of America."
Sean Hannity would prefer to send those 3,000 troops to Iraq.
And Cersei Lannister, a colleague of Laura Ingraham, says: "The scary little Ebola worms? Is this a threat to national security?" (Dartmouth grad Cersei thinks the best way to stop Ebola is to seal the border ... and keep the kids out too).
Breathtakingly stupid!!! The whole damn bunch. How can you take seriously any adult who sports a Pinocchio nose! Hells bells, my kids outgrew that stuff after age four.
Lisa, where to begin... you are going to be hard pressed to find much empirical evidence, as opposed to anecdotal evidence, that people voted for candidate Obama because he is black.
A strong majority of African Americans vote for Dems no matter who is running, just like a majority of white people vote GOP no matter who is running.
What's your point there? Please show us the demographics that support your statement.
The facts, and even Rand Paul of the GOP has alluded them are this... the base of the GOP is shrinking and unless they can figure out how to effectively communicate their message to people of color, it will continue that way.
Here's a hint on that... the GOP leadership and the base [conservative bloggers and activists] need to stop with the "Real American" talk and end the use of words and names for minorities that people find offensive.
Do you want to be in a room with people who are always calling you the most offensive names possible for a woman? Would you have someone as a friend who always called you a slut?
Of course not... yet many conservatives, and you can see it on the pages you frequent, don't care to change on that. So why would minorities who are sick of this type of stuff, want to associate with people that do that?
Do libs do it, sometimes going over the top in their criticisms of the GOP base? Yes they do, but Dems do not have to appeal to that group to win an election.
This is about numbers Lisa, pure and simple. It is not manipulation. The GOP and its' base are offensive to people not necessarily for their policies, but for their attitudes and the way the way they express those attitudes.
Lisa, regarding Ben Carson, extreme conservatives have for years said Barack Obama was not qualified for the presidency because he as inexperienced.
For that group to now embrace a man, simply because they like his politics or ideas and dismiss their prior critique of Obama smacks of opportunism.
If you guys were so vehement in your criticism of Obama and his lack of experience, how can you now support a man who has even less experience?
It makes no sense.
Ben Carson is a brilliant surgeon. many owe their life to him. That does not mean he knows anything about government or how to get things done in Washington.
Sorry Lisa, if people who believed Obama was not qualified to be Pres are now supporting Dr. Carson, who has less experience than Obama, then maybe they are dumb.
Lisa, did you vote for McCain and Romney because they were white?
Prove you did not.
That is essentially what you are asking of African American people.
Maybe African American people voted for Obama because he is a Dem. The fact that he is black, not half black as many of your commenting friends like to say, was only a bonus.
Were their some who did make that decision based on color? Statistically yes. But that does not mean they did so for the free goodies any more than a vote for a white guy means you hate people of color.
Shaw, a columnist a while back decided to accept the conservative argument that in fact, none of the things that they have done, some of which you have referenced are, or were to be interpreted as racist.
And then he asked the following question, to which I've never seen a conservative respond.
If someone were to treat President Obama in a racially offensive way, what would it look like? What would they have to do for their actions to be characterized as racist.
Maybe Lisa, Ralph, Skud or any other conservative reading this would like to respond.
Sorry, I know it's off point, but seeing so many of the typical right-wing talking points, without any evidence to support their claims pushed me to the edge today.
Lisa, you certainly have received a lot of press here, if nothing else.
Lisa is welcome here, but if anyone insults her, they will be deleted.
That goes for you, Anonymous who came here at 5:38 today. You know who you are.
And for those who criticize me for having comment moderation on, the jerk who left that comment is the reason.
Post a Comment