CHARLES DARWIN
Republicans’ views on evolution
Significantly fewer Republicans believe in evolution than did so four years ago, setting them apart from Democrats and independents, according to a recent Pew Research Center study.
But behind this finding is a puzzle: If the views of the overall public have remained steady, and there has been little change among people of other political affiliations, how does one account for the Republican numbers? Shouldn’t the marked drop in Republican believers cause a decline in the 60% of all adults who say humans have evolved over time?
Difficult to believe, isn't it. But I've read on far right Tea-Pee-er blogs such moronic statements as"Evolution hasn't been proved" and "there are no transitional fossils, etc." And the people who claim such nonsense are proudly far right conservatives. We've even seen presidential contenders raise their hands to be counted as evolution nonbelievers, which would be the same as raising one's hand as gravity nonbelievers. But we all know how willingly politicians will pander for a couple of votes from the anti-science crowd.
Certain far right Tea-Pee-er blogs celebrate their ignorance and cultist beliefs on evolution and climate change on a daily basis and are positively proud of their ignorance.
One of their leading lights, Dr. Ben Carson, a guy who actually had to take biology to get through medical school, astoundingly says these stupidly absurd things about evolution and other scientific theories:
Ben Carson: Evolution Is An Absurd Myth, 'Give Me A Break' -
He claimed that “no one has the knowledge” of the age of the earth “based on the Bible,” adding that “carbon dating and all of these things really don’t mean anything to a God who has the ability to create anything at any point in time.” Carson pointed to the “complexity of the human brain” as proof that evolution is a myth: “Somebody says that came from a slime pit full of promiscuous biochemicals? I don’t think so.” He said evolution is unable to explain the development of an eyeball: “Give me a break."
And here's another Tea-Pee hopeful, unable to answer a simple, straight forward question on accepted science, for fear of losing the Stupid vote:
LONDON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Wednesday dodged a question about whether he believes in evolution. Speaking at the Chatham House foreign policy think tank London, Walker was asked: "Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?" "For me, I am going to punt on that one as well," he said. "That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I'm here to talk about trade, not to pontificate about evolution."
Pontificate about evolution? Does Walker even know what the word "pontificate" means? Two pontifs, Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis have "pontificated" on the subject and said people of faith absolutely can accept the science of evolution.
Scott Walker: What a sniveling little coward!
In case you've forgotten, here's another conservative politician, who should know better, pandering for the ignorant vote, after he warned Republicans to stop being "the Stupid party." Jindal is just another run-of-the-mill cowardly panderer when it comes to speaking about evolution. He, like Carson and Walker, is afraid of losing the Stupid Vote:
Bobby Jindal Refuses To Say If He Believes In Evolution
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 2016 presidential hopeful told reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
As Charles Darwin said, it is not the strongest nor the most intelligent who will survive, but the FITTEST: those who can manage change to survive.
If you're still denying Evolution, how the hell will you survive the 21st century?
37 comments:
He said evolution is unable to explain the development of an eyeball
Amazing that they keep using this one when in fact the evolution of the eye is among the best-understood of all living structures. There are actually living species right now with examples of all the intermediate forms, and the eye was independently evolved at least forty different times in the course of evolution on Earth.
They don't know anything (which is understandable) and refuse to educate themselves before making stupid pronouncements (which is inexcusable). But for a doctor, who must have studied biology to a fairly advanced level, to claim ignorance about something so basic is shocking.
yes, Shaw, people like Walker, Jindal and Carson are cowards, unable to answer a question as easy as "do you accept evolution?" That's because, as you've pointed out, they're afraid of the stupids in their base. The base of the GOP is full of ignorant people who live in the Dark Ages and would head explode if one of their politicians spoke the truth. They're doomed. But expecially little weasels like Walker.
You can lead one to knowledge however you are powerless as to wether they choose to absorb and understand it.
Certainly the attempt to embarrass, belittle, or shame them into accepting what 60 percent of people accept as truth is doomed to fail.
But it makes for good copy. I guess.
It's not just a matter of good copy, RN. The evolution deniers and other science deniers are now being voted into positions of legislative power. They would try to force a religious-based idea (Creationism/Intelligent Design) on public school children. Jindal has tried that in Louisiana.
The anti-science Tea-Pee-ers are trying with all their legislative power to force American students to believe a religious parable is the same as settled science.
When superstition and myths are forced on a population as the foundation of a society, that society is doomed.
Jindal, Carson, and Walker know better, that's why their pandering is beyond shameful; it's unAmerican and detrimental to our country's security.
Stupid people will always lose when they compete in the market place of ideas and innovation. Why do those men deliberately want to keep this country at the bottom of the list of countries that accept the evolutionary process as settled science?
Here's an example of one clergyman's argument against evolution:
(The article comes from "The Blaze," one of the Tea-Pee-ers' favorite online sites that reinforces their paranoia and misinformation.)
"Mohler hit back, claiming that the dominant theory of evolution centers upon the notion that something essentially came from nothing."
Anyone with a basic education in biology knows that evolution says no such thing. Evolution is about speciation and changes over time. Darwin never said anything about the origins of life.
The people who keep denying evolution don't know what they're talking about. The guy quoted above is only one sad, ludicrous example.
Age of sound bite cliches combined with constant repetition has yielded a dumbed down general population that is certainly less inquisitive.
Having family members that are educators, both conservative and liberal, their view of Common Core it that it's impact will be to exacerbate the above. Why? Because it does not teach people to ACTUALLY THINK. It has the power to indoctrinate them to right standardized protocols, uf that is the correct word. I'm sure you would love speaking to my sister, a conservative, and my son, a liberal. They are in agreement.
My apology for going a bit off topic but in a way it is part of the broader picture IMO.
Why deal with facts when you can roll along with ignorance and myths? Imagine if Democratic politicians had to tell their voters that gravity is only a theory the "jury's still out on it." Who would respect them?
Why is it different for the GOP? Why does the GOP pretend the evolution deniers and skeptics are even sane? Why does the GOP tolerate that level of ignorance?
Why does the GOP tolerate that level of ignorance?
I don't know, I can only guess.
1) It brings in the membership dollars.
2) It secures the votes of these folks.
3)
4)
5)
6) It needs the distraction of absurdity.
I've left spaces for you to fill in Shaw as I can think of no others.
I'm more distressed that the number of Republicans denying evolution has dropped by a significant percentage in recent years.
Can we attribute that to campaigns to brainwash school kids with creationism?
Why? Because the base of the GOP is filled with morons, and the politicians need those votes. Plus morons have a right to be represented, don't they? So the TGOP is a big tent and welcomes low-information voters.
Addendum: That should read "increased" not "dropped"
Viva Darwin!
I knew that, Ducky. T-GOPers are increasingly rejecting the piles and piles of evidence for evolution. Why?
Because they're not open to evidence and facts. You and I see this in action by reading their astoundingly dumb comments day after day after day on anything that contradicts their reactionary world view.
I'm surprised any of them would even consider flying in airplanes, since that would mean they'd have to acknowledge aerodynamics is real.
Instead of increasing in knowledge, they're decreasing in it. And they're proud of it!
Speaking of attempting to decrease knowledge this was expected.
THis is from the link you posted:
"February 12, Charles Darwin’s birthday, is often celebrated by secularists and, sadly, even some Christians."
"...sadly, even some Christians?"
That Ham dude is seriously stupid. But at least we can get a laugh out of his nincompoopery.
He shares his rejection of evolution along with the majority of Muslim believers. They have a lot in common. LOL!
Belief trumps facts every time. In other words, don't confuse me with facts. My mind is already made up.
February 12, 1809 is the birth date of Abraham Lincoln.
You know, it's funny, twenty-some odd years ago, as a fledgling Christian, I was getting a ride home from one of my many Christian mentors. Since we were together at a Baptist church, there was a lot of talk about creationism and the infallibility of God's word. I told him I didn't really think that I would be able to espouse a point of view as out-of-step with important biological and anthropological science as a strict, biblical description of creation, versus the widely accepted theory of evolution.
I heard something brand new to me that evening in that little Toyota Tercel. He told me about the theory of intelligent design. That, maybe the evolution of humans and other species wasn't exactly as described in Genesis, but happened under the watchful eye of a loving God. That made a lot of sense to me and I felt a lot better throwing in with a bunch of nutty, fundamentalist Christians.
Fast forward ten or twenty years, this very same, sane and lovely attempt to reconcile science and faith has been co-opted by the fringe creationists to mean almost the exact same thing as strict creationism. No meaningful difference, whatsoever.
My favorite creationist from the 1980s was a really nice pastor emeritus. He cited arguments that he had heard from evolutionists regarding how different species of animals and creatures had similar body parts such as a spine, a heart, two eyes, a nose, et cetera. He said, "Well, naturally. They all had the same creator."
A guy like that would be a breath of fresh air today.
I'm more distressed that the number of Republicans denying evolution has [increased]
I'm just spit ballin' here. Christians who lean fundamentalist are seeing their "right" to discriminate being dismantled and feel their religious freedom is under attack. Same sex marriage, contraception coverage in ACA (even though they won that battle) are Godless, Leftist plots to undermine Christianity.
Evolution and the AGW/CC "hoax", same thing. Leftist indoctrination to destroy religion and God's own free enterprise system. As we've seen, anything that even slightly challenges their worldview is PERSECUTION! For that percentage of Christians to whom the world is out to get, modernity and knowledge are the enemies. They can retreat to the comfy security of their mythology.
It's either that or something else.
I can't explain Dr. Ben. I think he is sincere. His religion trumps one of the best substantiated theories in science. Go figure. Jindhal and Walker are panderers.
J.C.: "Belief trumps facts every time."
It's wingnuttia's motto.
F.J., Lincoln and Darwin were born on the same day in the same year. I wanted to devote the 12th to Darwin, but I'm glad you included Lincoln in your comment.
Be aware, though, that the wingnuts who claim evolution is "only a theory," are the same people who believe Abraham Lincoln was a destructive monster and a traitor to the USA. Yes. It's nuts, but they believe it.
"... are the same people who believe Abraham Lincoln was a destructive monster and a traitor to the USA. Yes. It's nuts, but they believe it.
In full this sentiment is borderline nuts. However, when considering only the actions taken by Abraham Lincoln with respect to the south's desire to succeed from the Union (joining was voluntary with no stipulation you couldn't withdraw at a later date) , the wording of the Declaration of Independence, and the prevalent belief the federal government had limited and delineated powers. Lincoln in fact was the first big statist mined president that believed in the supremacy of the federal government.
Personally I have always viewed Lincoln in a less favorable light than many. Based on the above does that make me nuts IYO?
"...that the wingnuts who claim evolution is "only a theory," "
I say creationism is only a theory, and a very poorly postulated one at that, and unsupported by facts or observation.
RN: "Lincoln in fact was the first big statist mined president that believed in the supremacy of the federal government."
With a country as large and diverse as ours, there has to be a governing entity, otherwise the states would be all over the place with laws governing interstate commerce, segregation, marriage, and even health issues, to name a few. Do you honestly think states would have voluntarily given up slavery? States fought the overturning of Lynch Laws, anti-miscegenation laws, Jim Crowe laws, and now some states would fight against equal protection for people who wish to marry the person they love.
RN: "Personally I have always viewed Lincoln in a less favorable light than many. Based on the above does that make me nuts IYO?"
No, your opinion doesn't make you nuts. Your opinion is not as extreme as others I've read. I believe Lincoln did what he thought was best in order to keep the Union together. He famously stated: “I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.”
The easiest thing in the world is to second guess what someone does in times of extreme danger and conflict. The hardest thing is to have the courage to act. Lincoln wasn't perfect, but he did what he believed was right, and he saved the Union. What happened after his death was result of the failure of cowardly men, not what Lincoln did to preserve the United States.
J.C., creationism is only a story.
Craig: "Christians who lean fundamentalist are seeing their "right" to discriminate being dismantled and feel their religious freedom is under attack. Same sex marriage, contraception coverage in ACA (even though they won that battle) are Godless, Leftist plots to undermine Christianity."
Yes. And the same sort of thinking was behind fundamentalist opposition to slavery, interracial marriage, and now marriage equality. They lost on the first two, and it looks like the last one will be a loser for them as well. Sharia Law/Christian Law: they don't work in a secular country.
F.J.: "Well, naturally. They all had the same creator."
Or, they all had the same biological principle, change over time, that made them what they are today.
Lincoln wasn't perfect, but he did what he believed was right, and he saved the Union.
True. Notwithstanding this the philosophical arguments remain valid ones.
On a different slant; sometimes one has to wonder if Lincoln would have done the union a favor by letting the south succeed.
skud, your comment had NOTHING to do with this post, that's why it was deleted. You're acting trollish AGAIN!
RN: "On a different slant; sometimes one has to wonder if Lincoln would have done the union a favor by letting the south succeed."
We would then have had a foreign country within our borders. Had the South seceded, they would not have been part of the United States of America. Could we have functioned with a foreign country within our borders?
We function OK with two foreign countries on our borders. I think it would have been more of a problem for them to function.
I myself for example did not "believe" in Evolution. Now I'm completely convinced that Evolution is real and that makes me proud.
I agree with Sleeza. Evolution is real. And so are monkeys with red asses. My people.
Jerry takes the argument. Well said Jerry.
Point of clarification. Had that happened the southern states would have been enclosed within their borders. They would no longer been a part of what was originally a voluntary union.
The USA would simply have shrunk.
The same goes for Texas. Let them secede. We will get along just fine without Texas. Texas will be the one hurting without the U.S. to prop them up.
The same goes for Texas. Let them secede
Yes. Then they'll HAVE TO stop calling the Cowboys, "America's team".
For those of us fortunate to be born and live in the South, Lincoln did us no favors.
We have most of the natural resources, people who want to work and have right to work with few unions. Our biggest problems come from the elite colonists and federal gooberment.
"We have most of the natural resources, people who want to work and have right to work with few unions. Our biggest problems come from the elite colonists and federal gooberment."
Most of the conservative southern states are in the bottom of the barrel where it comes to educating their citizens, insuring their citizens, and quality of life issues. But they lead the rest of the country in poverty, out-of-wedlock births, divorces, and deaths by firearms.
"Elitist colonists and federal gooberment" have nothing to do with those issues. Local conservative government does. Just ask someone like ex-Gov. Perry of Texas who brags about his state having THE HIGHEST number of uninsured citizens. He claims it's what Texas wants. You can't make that sort of stupidity up, can you. Also, take a look at the $1.6 billion deficit Governor Jindal of Louisiana will be leaving for his successor. Now you can understand a librul state doing that, but a RED conservative state? How did that happen?
I suppose you can always blame Obama instead of your state governments for those great successes, eh?
HIGHEST POVERTY RATES IN SOUTH
FORBES MAGAZINE: 'Red States' Rank Low On U.S. Human Development Index
"When it comes to well-being — as measured by health, education and income — the southern ‘red states’ continue to be in worse shape compared to their Yankee rivals, according to a study called the Measure of America, released Wednesday by the Brooklyn based-Social Science Research Council."
Ignorance breeds more ignorance. Violence breeds more violence. Poverty breed more poverty.
skudrunner, repeat at will until it makes sense.
There are many paths to water. Key once there is to drink.
Oy Vey...
your resident troll suddenly went silent, shaw, after you presented the facts that discredit his yammering about how great conservatives run their states.
Post a Comment