Skip to comments.Democrats use science as a weapon
Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
click here to read article
Democrat use false science as a weapon.
Real science has no ideology.
You realize next year the global warming scam will be 25 years old?
Well, I was with you until you called evolution “junk science.”
The theory of evolution is as fundamental to biological science as the theory of electromagnetism is to physical science. There is no moral component or consideration to either theory; they just are.
25 years and we STILL haven't been able to destroy the planet?
We sure aren't very efficient capitalists are we...
Leftist will always fail to use science for evil purposes compared to Dr. Insano!
While I totally agree with you, thats one of those issues on FR that is never resolved. I guess the best we can do is agree to disagree with each other when this happens.
Democrats have shown us with the Global Warming BS that scientists can be bought off just like their other lackeys.
The progressives use everything as a weapon.
...and for the last 13 of those years, the global temperature has been essentially unchanged?
Those very same liberals that love to cite Ike's cautionary words about the MIC somehow remain totally ignorant of, or conveniently gloss over the fact that it was but one of two trends Eisenhower addressed in that address. The next time you hear some liberal spouting off about, Eisenhower and 'the military industrial complex,'be sure to hammer them with your concern about, 'scientific-technological elite.' From Ike's speech:
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
The only purpose of the Democrat propaganda operatives in the MSM is to repeat the lies and attack and destroy anyone that tells the truth.
Science can be lied about just like any other subject and politicians can use taxpayer dollars to pay fraudulent scientists to lie. They can also use taxpayer dollars to silence scientists who tell the truth.
You wrote: “The theory of evolution is as fundamental to biological science as the theory of electromagnetism is to physical science. There is no moral component or consideration to either theory; they just are.”
Of course, though...there are several “theories of evolution”.
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.
A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations.
What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter __are incompatible with the truth about man__. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”
Theories of Evolution http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago.
Prior to this there was existence, but so what? There was life, but who cares? With no one to consciously experience it, what was the point? Without self-conscious observers, the whole cosmos could bang into being and contract into nothingness, and it would be no different than the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it.
One of the reasons why this is such a lonely and unpopular blog is that it takes both science and religion seriously. Most science and religion are unserious, but especially -- one might say intrinsically -- when they exclude each other.
A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings. And I mean this literally, in that it will be a science that applies to a different species, not the one that is made to know love, truth, beauty, existence, and the Absolute. Science must begin and end in this principle -- which is to say, the Principle -- or it is just a diversion. ...."
In biology there is currently only one commonly accepted theory of evolution - that of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
That the theory has materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations above and beyond the actual science doesn’t mean that there is more than one theory.
That's right. Then it is called "Scientism". Unfortunately it is "Scientism" rather than purely biological evolution, that is in fact being taught in government schools when they attempt to say that man is merely just another animal species "naturally" capable of knowing love, truth, beauty, existence, and the absolute.
They must have skipped that ultra-materialist theological aspect of the theory when I learned and/or taught it in High School.
But then again my teacher was a Catholic - and I am a Christian - as most Scientists in America are people with religious faith - so we would neither accept or teach such.
Great video. Interesting little story - the guy who yelled science was famous in England, had a science tv show - kind of like their version of Bill Nye. As soon as the song came out he couldn’t walk down the street without people yelling “Science!” at him or trying to get him to do it and he turned into a recluse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.