Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 08/24/2011 10:44:39 AM PDT by neverdem
Forget about creationism and start worrying about the left's faith-based devotion to government.
So every now and then, liberals are treated to a big self-righteous laugh at the expense of some backwoods Christian conservative candidate who "ignores science" by doubting evolution or global warming—or, gasp, both.
Much, for instance, has been made of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent suggestion that evolution is a "theory that's out there" with "gaps in it." He even insinuated that evolution and creationism should both be taught in schools—because folks are "smart enough to figure out which one is right."
Sanctimony to red alert!
Now, I have no interest in watching my kids waste their time with creationism, but unlike progressives, I have no interest in dictating what other kids should learn. Remember that these folks, bothered by the very thought of their offspring's hearing a God-infused concept in school, have no problem forcing millions of parents to accept bureaucrat-written curricula at government-run school monopolies. They oppose home schooling. They oppose school choice. They oppose parents choosing a religious education with their tax dollars.
As a voter, like me, you may find Perry's view on creationism disconcerting and a sign of an unsophisticated candidate. But the fact is that the progressives' faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry's faith-based position on evolution.
Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science—real science—is rarely controversial. It's politicized science that is prickly. And science is easy to politicize. Maybe if schools began teaching students that "life" begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo, and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point.
No, my kids haven't been chewing over Charles Darwin text or the Holy Bible in elementary school. There's simply no time. Not with global warming out there.
Perry, not surprisingly, was also recently asked about "global warming." He responded that "the issue has been politicized" and that pouring billions of dollars into "a scientific theory that has not been proven and ... is more and more being put into question" is not worthwhile.
It is interesting watching the nation's defenders of reason, empirical evidence, and science fail to display a hint of skepticism over the transparently political "science" of global warming. Rarely are scientists so certain in predicting the future. Yet this is a special case. It is also curious that these supposed champions of Darwin don't believe that human beings—or nature—have the ability to adapt to changing climate.
Like 99 percent of pundits and politicians, though, I have no business chiming in on the science of climate change—though my kids' teachers sure are experts. Needless to say, there is a spectacular array of viewpoints on this issue. The answers are far from settled. There are debates over how much humans contribute. There are debates over how much warming we're seeing. There are debates over many things.
But even if one believed the most terrifying projections of global warming alarmist "science," it certainly doesn't mean one has to support the anti-capitalist technocracy to fix it. And try as some may to conflate the two, global warming policy is not "science." The left sees civilization's salvation in a massive Luddite undertaking that inhibits technological growth by turning back the clock, undoing footprints, forcing technology that doesn't exist, banning products that do, and badgering consumers who have not adhered to the plan through all kinds of punishment. Yet there is no real science that has shown that any of it makes a whit of difference.
So no doubt, it is reasonable for voters to query presidential candidates about their views on faith, religion, God, Darwin, and science. It matters. Sometimes, though, it matters less than they'd like you to think it does.
Moral equivalency alert.
Ever notice how those who call us “anti-science” want to bring us back to a Pre-Industrial Revolution civilization?
> As a voter, like me, you may find Perry’s view on
> creationism disconcerting and a sign of an unsophisticated > candidate.
I don’t find it disconcerting at all. I find it refreshing. I teach my children that God Created in our home school.
As for being an “unsophisticated candidate”, I’ve had all the metrosexual sophists I can take. I’ll puke if I hear another effete phony playing the highbrow.
I’d rather have someone like Jed Clampett, a mountain man, a hard working man, a simple man with simple tastes, and a Biblical perspective, than the metrosexual pansies that have been running our country into the ground for the past few generations.
But the fact is that the progressives' faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry's faith-based position on evolution.
THIS. It matters very little, what someone believes about evolution, at least in a political candidate. What matters 1000x more is what they believe about the government and its proper role in society.
Obama needs to be asked whether or not he believes that the universe was created by God.
NPR approached it like a trip to the zoo. They wanted to know what Christians believed. They noted that some of the beliefs were pretty wild. Pretty out of the ordinary. They expressed some disbelief that people in an advanced society held on to some of these ideas.
They explored the idea that Christians "hide" their beliefs by using "code words". For example "shedding of innocent blood" means -- gasp! -- abortion. And discouraging "sexual immorality" means that Christians are "anti-homosexual rights". The third point (which seems to have especially bothered NPR) was that Christians are evangelical and seek to persuade non-Christians to become Chrisian. Even Jews! They were astounded that Christians want to see Jews concert to Christianity.
The whole thing was presented as a bizarre cult, and Rick Perry as a cult member.
I'm pretty sure that NPR has never focused on the core beliefs of Islam in quite this way.
bttt
Actually, what they want is a Malthusian population purge,
followed by them being in charge of the remaining, smaller, and more controllable population.
He may waffle and say it’s above his pay grade... but I think it’s an excellent question.
He’s either one of those “anti-science creationists”, or he’s not.
It would be the nails in the coffin of the “right-wingers are scary because they are creationists” argument.
Evolution should try becoming mainstream science where best answers coalesce when one observes, measures, replicates by experiment, and computes formulas for a phenomenon. Currently, examinations for many physical events have not reached this four-fold rationality.
One example is String Theory, or the “theory of everything”; everything for atomic, micro-processes. Elegant mathematical models utilize eleven dimensions to unify gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear strong and weak forces. Here is computation without experiment, measurement, or observation. Niels Bohr would say, “Yes, yes you have the mathematics. But does it make sense?” Notable critics say scientists utilize mathematics, but inadvertently venture into philosophy or religion.
The other extreme is Macroevolution or Darwinism, where all is observation. Rigorous measurements and experiments would require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history. Science advocates contemplate observed phenomenon, and decide evolution explains everything. Yet Macroevolution fails computational testing, with vanishing small probabilities, using Thermodynamics, which covers all macro-processes.
For just one hypothesis assume there are 82,000,000 steps from the first one cell animal to man and 81,999,500 have an absolute certainty of occurring. If the remaining 500 have a 90% probability of occurring, then the chance Macroevolution explains the presence of humans is 0.000000000000000000000013220708.
Advocates could consider natural processes in open systems, as required by natural selection and consistently note increased disorder, release of energy, and increased entropy. Even huge energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge absent intentionality.
Rigorous debate continues concerning String Theory, but debate is prohibited concerning Evolution. Darwinist advocates contend contrary arguments require intrusion of God. Yet good theologians of desert religions would say a god hedged in by observation, measurement, experiment, and computation ends up equivalent to the Golden Calf the Israelites constructed in the Wilderness. Their God can only be found by mystical, faith encounters.
ping
But Brainwashing students into Homosexuality and Radical Environmentalism is now rampant.
I would say, flee now! Consider Home or Private school ASAP!
Exactly what creationists are accused of.
Except it's *bad* when creationists want to do it but *good* when libtards want to, cause they're saving the planet, donctcha know?
I read something good last night -
it was a parallel that I’m sure you’ll figure out.
“If I reject arson, do I then have to not use fire to cook my food? And if I use fire to cook my food, do I then have to embrace arson as right?”
Up to and including death: No Pressure
Yep. The GOP needs to hammer away on three issues...
1. The economy.
2. The economy
3. The economy.
Thanks for the ping!
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.