# Pew Poll: 6% of Scientists are Republicans



## Modbert (Jul 10, 2009)

6% of Scientists are Republicans.

How unsurprising 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACWtrfbk9ic]YouTube - 6% Of Scientist Are Republicans[/ame]

Further stats:

55% Democrat
6% Republican
39% Independent

52% Liberal
14% Very Liberal
9% Conservative


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> 
> How unsurprising
> 
> YouTube - 6% Of Scientist Are Republicans


got a link to the actual poll, or is it just two morons with an internet video says so?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

A better stat would be how may are apolitical.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 11, 2009)

nevermind, i found it myself

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

and a lot claim to be independent as well


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> A better stat would be how may are apolitical.



hopefully they aren't as partisan as Old Roxy is.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> A better stat would be how may are apolitical.


which is what the poll does show
but the two morons in the video are partisan hacks and didnt discuss that


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> got a link to the actual poll, or is it just two morons with an internet video says so?



Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

About 2/3 of the way down on the right. They're not morons by the way.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > got a link to the actual poll, or is it just two morons with an internet video says so?
> ...


they are too morons
they took one results and ignored the rest


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> nevermind, i found it myself
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> and a lot claim to be independent as well



They are certainly more Liberal overall in the grand scheme of things. Again, how unsurprising. I think the #s for the for the Military question is interesting.


----------



## Meister (Jul 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> nevermind, i found it myself
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> and a lot claim to be independent as well



Why doesn't this surprise me?
The majority of independents lean to the left.  But, they are starting to move from the Obama camp


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > nevermind, i found it myself
> ...



obama can't be re-elected without independents.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> they are too morons
> they took one results and ignored the rest



They discussed one part of the results and didn't focus on the rest. If you look at the rest, across the board, Scientists are more Liberal and certainly believe more in Liberal positions then the Public for the most part.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > nevermind, i found it myself
> ...


and thats to be expected
why?
because they know which side their bread is buttered on


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> obama can't be re-elected without independents.



No, he cannot. However, when Independents have to choose between Obama and whichever candidate the Republicans put out there it's most likely going to be back to Obama unless the Republican is VERY moderate. However, the current makeup of the Republican Party would NOT allow such a thing to occur.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> and thats to be expected
> why?
> because they know which side their bread is buttered on



Not exactly, though it is true that Bush basically said fuck you to scientists over eight years.

It's more of the fact that they are more Liberal about experimentation then Republicans are. Such as with stem cells, about the planet, etc. Plus, Republicans are more of a party of religion then science. Do you truly expect the majority of Scientists to believe in a POV that goes against most of their beliefs?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> nevermind, i found it myself
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> and a lot claim to be independent as well


I don't trust "independents" or "centrists" any further than I can throw my car.

Give me an honest partisan any day of the week.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > obama can't be re-elected without independents.
> ...



If they're smart, they'll nominate Romney, who was supported by many farrighties including ann coulter and Laura Ingraham.


----------



## Meister (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > obama can't be re-elected without independents.
> ...



I think the next presidential election will be about the economy and debt.  He could be a dead horse by the next election.


----------



## eots (Jul 11, 2009)

what the hell is a pew poll ????...sounds like some maniacal Asian dictator


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> If they're smart, they'll nominate Romney, who was supported by many farrighties including ann coulter and Laura Ingraham.



I'd love to see the GOP come close to nominating a Mormon but it won't happen. The far right of the party would go ape shit and that's a good part of the base that Palin would pick up if she ran.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> I think the next presidential election will be about the economy and debt.  He could be a dead horse by the next election no matter what.



Things can change alot in four years. For example, did you really think that in 2008 that America would vote for a half Black man who's middle name is Hussein back in 2004? The Democratic party looked on life support after the 2004 elections.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > and thats to be expected
> ...


Li'l Bushie said "fuck you" to federal funding, not to science in and of itself.

Why should taxpayers be supporting "scientists" who don't check their politics at the door??


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

Palin needs to stay out.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I think the next presidential election will be about the economy and debt.  He could be a dead horse by the next election no matter what.
> ...


That one can easily be turned around....

Did you really think that the republicans could -or really wanted to- win with the old geezer, who lost to the goober who ended up being most unpopular president since Harry Truman??


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Li'l Bushie said "fuck you" to federal funding, not to science in and of itself.
> 
> Why should taxpayers be supporting "scientists" who don't check their politics at the door??



They were merely asked a question about their politics, it wasn't a question whether their politics affected their work. If more Republicans were scientists, you'd probably see more scientists who believe human activity has no relation at all to global warming and more Scientists who proclaim Creationism as truth. Those are scientists who let politics affect their work.

Scientists who are Liberal also sometimes have their work affected by politics but science for the most part is a can you prove this or not sort of thing.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Did you really think that the republicans could (or really wanted) win with the old geezer, who lost to the goober who ended up being most unpopular president since Harry Truman??



Probably not, though Bush played some VERY dirty tactics against McCain in Sorth Carolina back in 2000. Also, wasn't Bush more unpopular than Truman?


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Did you really think that the republicans could (or really wanted) win with the old geezer, who lost to the goober who ended up being most unpopular president since Harry Truman??
> ...



south carolina.

bush's approval rating never got down to Truman's record of 22 percent,


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Did you really think that the republicans could (or really wanted) win with the old geezer, who lost to the goober who ended up being most unpopular president since Harry Truman??
> ...


I'm sooooo tired of that lame-assed South Carolina bullshit excuse. Fact is that John McOldfuck was always a shitty candidate.

And yes, Li'l Bushie was less popular than Truman, by a nose....Which makes him the least popular since then.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> palin needs to stay out.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 11, 2009)

This is so funny I can't stop laughing.  I am not going to try to guess, but I have to believe the vast majority of scientists polled earn their living off of grants and public money.  Climate change, stem cell research, research for diseases, we can go on and on and on; many scientists get their funding through some type of grant, and guess which party is likely to dole out more money in grants, especially the ones on things like fruit fly research in France?

Now, I won't say all of that public spending is wasteful but come on, if your livelihood was dependent upon federal money, wouldn't you support the party that was most likely to keep you working?


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> south carolina.
> 
> bush's approval rating never got down to Truman's record of 22 percent,



My bad, I knew it was one of the two.

Really? I wonder if adjusted for population what would be Truman's today.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



I think Romeny will have a good shot.  I supported him this past election and will so again in 2012 if he runs.  I do think though, that Jeb Bush still could become a viable candidate if Obama really tanks, but it would have to be tanking of epic proportions for most people to vote for another Bush.  If Jeb didn't have his brother's last name though, he would be the front runner right now.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



romney has his own money, which should help


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Li'l Bushie said "fuck you" to federal funding, not to science in and of itself.
> ...


GAFB!!!!!

Science is as political as you can get.....Especially "peer review".


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> I think Romeny will have a good shot.  I supported him this past election and will so again in 2012 if he runs.  I do think though, that *Jeb Bush* still could become a viable candidate if Obama really tanks, but it would have to be tanking of epic proportions for most people to vote for another Bush.  If Jeb didn't have his brother's last name though, he would be the front runner right now.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zydAs5bRW1U]YouTube - The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again - Live 8[/ame]


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > If they're smart, they'll nominate Romney, who was supported by many farrighties including ann coulter and Laura Ingraham.
> ...



I'm not Mormon, and I am a Christian, although not a right wing fanatic.  I would support Romeny over Palin without question.  Palin would be my absolute last choice.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> romney has his own money, which should help



I don't think the comment he said about his sons on whether they would serve would sit well with veterans. Along with a bunch of other things. Like how he is a massive flip flopper.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> I'm not Mormon, and I am a Christian, although not a right wing fanatic.  I would support Romeny over Palin without question.  Palin would be my absolute last choice.



I'm not saying Christian = Far Right, I'm talking FAR RIGHT which happens to be a good % of the party.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> I'm not saying Christian = Far Right, I'm talking FAR RIGHT which happens to be a good % of the party.


You gotta be nuts!!

How are you defining "far right"???


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > south carolina.
> ...


LOL
the size of the population would not effect the percentages
LOL


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > I think Romeny will have a good shot.  I supported him this past election and will so again in 2012 if he runs.  I do think though, that *Jeb Bush* still could become a viable candidate if Obama really tanks, but it would have to be tanking of epic proportions for most people to vote for another Bush.  If Jeb didn't have his brother's last name though, he would be the front runner right now.
> ...



Jeb is not George, not even close.  But again, he has that name.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> You gotta be nuts!!
> 
> How are you defining "far right"???



Those who believe we should go back to teaching the bible in school. Those who  want anything that is anti-Christian to be changed by any means. Those who feel that the bible should be used more in our law-making. Those who believe there should be no gun control at all. Those who feel Atheism should be banned. There are of course other ways to define far right. It of course revolves around obsession to religion and some right wing views.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> LOL
> the size of the population would not effect the percentages
> LOL



I was referring if a poll was taken about approval today, what would be the result.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.



Go read The Great Influenza by John B. Morris. Science in the US was a joke back in the 1890s and highly inferior to Europe. Any person who wanted to be a legitimate doctor or scientist went to learn in Europe and came back here.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

50,000 Americans killed under Truman vs 4000 killed under bush, 
truman's approval rating could be in the single digits.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.


That's not the kind of politics I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is the politics of telling academic "peers" what they "know" in order to get their stamps of approval.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.
> ...



It was proven in Europe as well. For example, the German scientists had believed such things long before Hitler.  when Nazi Germany came into being, the racial scientists were not forces to do the research.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.
> ...



I was being facetious.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Jeb is not George, not even close.  But again, he has that name.



Whether it's true or not (I believe it's obvious true) Jeb helped his brother win Florida to some extent back in 2000. That wouldn't sit well with voters. Besides, I would hope by now that Americans are sick of Bushes/Clintons in office.

If Jeb wins in 2012 for example.

From Early 1989 to Early 2016, we would of had 27 years or so. 23 of those with Bushes/Clintons.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> It was proven in Europe as well. For example, the German scientists had believed such things long before Hitler.  when Nazi Germany came into being, the racial scientists were not forces to do the research.



That's certain scientists for sure. I know you're being facetious but still. It's unfair to those scientists who have been doing legitimate science during those years to judge them by the racists.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Those who believe we should go back to teaching the bible in school. Those who  want anything that is anti-Christian to be changed by any means. Those who feel that the bible should be used more in our law-making. Those who believe there should be no gun control at all. Those who feel Atheism should be banned. There are of course other ways to define far right. It of course revolves around obsession to religion and some right wing views.


Absent the gun control issue, what's "far right" about using the tools of big  government aggression to impose one's will upon everyone else??.....That's more the tactic of the fervent secularist far left.

And I've been around enough republican types to know that those fundies are nowhere near the majority of the party.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > It was proven in Europe as well. For example, the German scientists had believed such things long before Hitler.  when Nazi Germany came into being, the racial scientists were not forces to do the research.
> ...



What I'm saying is politics has always been present in science.  in the 1890's, it led to "White Man's Burden,"


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> 50,000 Americans killed under Truman vs 4000 killed under bush,
> truman's approval rating could be in the single digits.



Luckily it wasn't higher under Bush. It thanks to the advancements in technology, and medical science that all these lives were saved. It's sad though that many of these wounded soldiers will never be able to walk again, and  we really have no solution to fix that problem yet.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


I thought so, but the medium doesn't lend itself to certain indicative cues, so I figgered I'd spell it out for everyone else.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > It was proven in Europe as well. For example, the German scientists had believed such things long before Hitler.  when Nazi Germany came into being, the racial scientists were not forces to do the research.
> ...


The racists are only _*an example*_ of what a political echo chamber "science" can be.

Just ask Galileo.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Absent the gun control issue, what's "far right" about using the tools of big  government aggression to impose one's will upon everyone else??.....That's more the tactic of the fervent secularist far left.
> 
> And I've been around enough republican types to know that those fundies are nowhere near the majority of the party.



I'm not saying they are a majority of the party or nowhere near. However, even the not so far right are a good chunk of the base.

I mean back in 1992 (the numbers would probably be much more higher now), Pat Robertson got over 1 million votes. There really has been no candidate to determine how much of the Republican party is FAR right since then. IF Palin were to run in 2012, she'd probably be the best indicator since than.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> The racists are only _*an example*_ of what a political echo chamber "science" can be.
> 
> Just ask Galileo.



Wasn't that more religious than political however? I mean the Church did run things at the time, and all but still.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Absent the gun control issue, what's "far right" about using the tools of big  government aggression to impose one's will upon everyone else??.....That's more the tactic of the fervent secularist far left.
> ...


Once again, you're defining "far right" as people who use classic coercion tactics of the left.

The context is irrelevant to the employment of the proactive use of aggression.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Once again, you're defining "far right" as people who use classic coercion tactics of the left.
> 
> The context is irrelevant to the employment of the proactive use of aggression.



You're being partisan by saying these are classic tactics by the left and the left alone. These are classic tactics by extremes of any group/belief/party. I also feel you're being unfair to Liberals such as myself because I'm not classifying the actions of those in the extreme Right wing as simply the "right".


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

I'm being partisan only in that the old school traditional "right" was along the lines of the live-and-let-live attitudes of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater.

The only criteria you seem to have between what constitutes "left" and "right" is how and what contexts proactive coercion is applied, not the fact in and of itself.


----------



## garyd (Jul 11, 2009)

Given that to admit to being a Republican on your average college campus can get you laughed out of town if not fired what do you expect?


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

garyd said:


> Given that to admit to being a Republican on your *average college campus* can get you laughed out of town *if not fired *what do you expect?



 What? Are you referring to professors?

Just about every college I'm sure has a group called "Young Republicans", I'm sure you've heard of them?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

Modbert said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > Given that to admit to being a Republican on your *average college campus* can get you laughed out of town *if not fired *what do you expect?
> ...


Tell ya what.....

You hand in your master's thesis at Princeton, to Paul Krugman, entitled "The Great Contributions of Ludwig von Mises and Austrian Economics", and tell me how you think you'll make out on getting that degree.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Tell ya what.....
> 
> You hand in your master's thesis at Princeton, to Paul Krugman, entitled "The Great Contributions of Ludwig von Mises and Austrian Economics", and tell me how you think you'll make out on getting that degree.



 The same is certainly true on colleges that are Republican except with different topics.

BTW: If I could afford to go to a place like Princeton, I wouldn't waste my money and go there considering there's certainly just as good colleges if not better colleges at a cheaper price.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

"Republican" colleges???

Name 'em.


----------



## garyd (Jul 11, 2009)

There aren't any Republican controlled colleges that aren't Called West Point, the Airforce Academy of the the naval Academy. And frankly there's more academic freedom there than on most other college campuses in the country.

And yes I was referencing professors not the student body. Which by the way would be obvious if you weren't woring on your masters in douche baggery.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> "Republican" colleges???
> 
> Name 'em.



If you truly think they don't exist then I don't know what to tell you. I don't have a comprehensive list on me but if I find it in my searches, I'll post it here.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

garyd said:


> And yes I was referencing professors not the student body. Which by the way would be obvious if you weren't *working* on your masters in douche baggery.


 (Fixed it for you )


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

IOW, you can't name them, and just toss out "republican colleges" as the best strawman you can grasp at.

How about Hillsdale??...Even though they're generally classical liberal in their overall atmosphere, they're hardly a propaganda arm of the RNC.

O.K....I named one "republican college" booger man...C'mon and lay the rest of 'em on me.

C'mon....Dazzle us.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> IOW, you can't name them, and just toss out "republican colleges" as the best strawman you can grasp at.
> 
> How about Hillsdale??...Even though they're generally classical liberal in their overall atmosphere, they're hardly a propaganda arm of the RNC.
> 
> ...



It's not strawman. Garyd named a few, I was actually thinking of West Point.

The thing is, many Republican colleges are private colleges. Many religious colleges can be considered Republican colleges.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2009)

Military academies are military academies, not political indoctrination centers....Trying to claim them as "republican" is absurd.

Now, where's that list??


----------



## Modbert (Jul 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Military academies are military academies, not political indoctrination centers....Trying to claim them as "republican" is absurd.
> 
> Now, where's that list??



Well Garyd is being absurd then, I was simply pointing out what he was saying. You're calling these colleges "political indoctrination" centers when we both know that it doesn't depend on the college but the professor.

There is no specific list out there, and you know it. However, as most religious (private) colleges have views mostly aligned with Republican ideals they could be considered "Republican" colleges.


----------



## chanel (Jul 12, 2009)

My son goes to CUA Their philosophy is "we are not a liberal college or a conservative college We are an unapologetic Catholic College He's studying politics and considers himself a libertarian. He's been THROWN out of class for challenging his liberal professors.

His girlfriend goes to Georgetown. That "Catholic" college that hid the crucifixes for the Prez.

There are no major "Republican" colleges anymore.


----------



## editec (Jul 12, 2009)

I'd love to see a serious study done on IQ and political beliefs (not parties, beliefs)

Bet your ass that would cause more fireworks than the _BELL CURVE_ books did.

Anyone care to make wager on which self-identifying belief systems have the higher IQs?

How about which groups have the higher levels of formal education?


----------



## Missourian (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


 



Strangely enough Bush also holds the record for highest approval rating of any President (90%),  followed by Bush Sr and then....wait for it....Truman.

Go figure.

P.S.-Nixon was lower than Bush and Carter got down to 28%

United States Presidential approval rating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toro (Jul 12, 2009)

I have known or met a few scientists at the universities, so this is hardly a representative sample, but the message they have conveyed in conversation was that the Bush administration, more than any other administration they could remember, injected religion and politics into the scientific community by either appointing religious people who would use religion in their decision making into positions of authority or just flat out ignore the scientific community if they thought it would upset their religious constituency.  My guess is that if this poll were conducted 10 years ago, more scientists would have said they were Republicans.

Also, it is no surprise that there would be more Democrat than Republican scientists in general since many scientists are in academia and on the government payroll, and they tend to vote Democrat since the Democrats are more likely to favor government support of most things, including the sciences.


----------



## editec (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > garyd said:
> ...


 
If it's well written thesis and your defence of it's premise is sound, I'm fairly certain you'd get your masters regardless of the sentiments of the professors.

FYI, economics isn't a hard science, anyway.

It's a social science.


----------



## Toro (Jul 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> The majority of independents lean to the left.  But, they are starting to move from the Obama camp



The majority of Independents lean to the left _now_.

I can't think of a time when a President won an election and lost the Independent vote.


----------



## Toro (Jul 12, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > nevermind, i found it myself
> ...








I find interesting the number of the public who believe the government has the responsibility to look after people who can't take care of themselves - 63%.


----------



## Toro (Jul 12, 2009)

Modbert said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > romney has his own money, which should help
> ...



I supported Romney at the beginning but came to realize that he would say absolutely anything to get elected, even more so than your typical politician.  He was a massive disappointment.

Plus, there was a poll that said half of Americans wouldn't support a mormon for President  

Many voters say they would never vote for Mormon president


----------



## Toro (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> I'm being partisan only in that the old school traditional "right" was along the lines of the live-and-let-live attitudes of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater.



A couple of years ago, I watched a documentary of Barry Goldwater produced by his daughter.  The thing that seared into my mind was Barry Goldwater's quote in an interview when he said "A time will come when my party will view me as a liberal."

I was and still am an active supporter of the Conservative parties in Canada and England but that is because they are more libertarian and are less influenced by evangelicals.  I have a hard time with the Republican party here in America.


----------



## xsited1 (Jul 12, 2009)

Modbert said:


> 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> 
> ...



As a scientist, I can vouch for that statistic.  Most scientists have to rely on grants from public agencies to get paid.  They're not stupid.  If the money dries up, they lose their job.  Think of it this way:  if you were a government employee, who would you vote for?  Would you vote for politicians who want to increase or decrease the size of government?  It's a no-brainer.


----------



## Xenophon (Jul 12, 2009)

Its interesting to note that scientists made sure the Soviets had atomic bombs, as they set up the 'mad theory' that has placed the human race in jeopardy ever since.

They also came up with said weapon, the biggest mass killer in history.

The really interesting part is nobody forced them to do it, they wanted to create these weapons.

The man who created the Saturn V moon rocket also created the V2 terror weapon.

The famous peace prize that Alfred Nobel set up was originally awarded money from his discovery of dynamite, an extremly distructive substance.

Just some food for thought for a Sunday morning.


----------



## Toro (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> Tell ya what.....
> 
> You hand in your master's thesis at Princeton, to Paul Krugman, entitled "The Great Contributions of Ludwig von Mises and Austrian Economics", and tell me how you think you'll make out on getting that degree.



Why would you study Ludwig von Mises under Paul Krugman?  You would study trade under Krugman.  You would study von Mises at George Mason University.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Modbert said:


> 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> 
> How unsurprising
> 
> ...



One has to be intelligent to be a scientist. So that breakdown is rather obvious


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> "Republican" colleges???
> 
> Name 'em.



Easy. Oral Roberts. Aren't you proud?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> 50,000 Americans killed under Truman vs 4000 killed under bush,
> truman's approval rating could be in the single digits.



Kind of like your IQ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Those who believe we should go back to teaching the bible in school. Those who  want anything that is anti-Christian to be changed by any means. Those who feel that the bible should be used more in our law-making. Those who believe there should be no gun control at all. Those who feel Atheism should be banned. There are of course other ways to define far right. It of course revolves around obsession to religion and some right wing views.
> ...



But they just run thing, right? You Rushpublicans are a real source of humor, at present. Sarborn, Ensign, and Palin. What a crew. Such good values and work ethic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Galileo was not persecuted by other "natural philosophers", but by the church. Any intelligent third grader would know that. Same for most of the natural philosphers of the time. Some even ended up being burned to death for their "heresy" of studying the reality of nature.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Ah yes, those evil "Lib bu rals". They think that just because they won an election they get to pass legislation. And they go out and get people to exercise their rights as citizens of this nation to vote. How Evil!

And then these horrible scientists, just because they are more intelligent than average, are mostly Liberal. Should be against the law, right? I mean coercing people to vote liberal by using logic. What a terrible thing to do. Give 'em God, Guns, and Gays, that is all that is needed! 

Hey Dude, we are going to win again in 2010. Thank you, Sarah, and boys.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > nevermind, i found it myself
> ...



Dream on.


----------



## elvis (Jul 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> ...



which is probably why you never were nor never could have been one.


----------



## elvis (Jul 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



They shouldn't allow senile old bastards like you to vote.


----------



## elvis (Jul 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > 50,000 Americans killed under Truman vs 4000 killed under bush,
> ...



your senility is showing again.  How long before you're taken to the Alzheimer's wing?


----------



## chanel (Jul 12, 2009)

As a public high school teacher I have witnessed first hand the dumbing down of America. If libs continue this course of destruction only 6 percent of our scientists will consider themselves "American"


----------



## elvis (Jul 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > 50,000 Americans killed under Truman vs 4000 killed under bush,
> ...



How high of an IQ must one have to be a carpenter?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2009)

God this board is awash in narrow minded assholes.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 12, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> God this board is awash in narrow minded assholes.


Most Republicans are small business people and people who work with their hands.  Most scientists are first of all acedemics, and know from where their bread is buttered as they depend on grants and academia for their funds.

What percentage of engineers are democrat vs republican?  I would estimate that the preponderance are republican, because, in part they depend on for their work and associate mostly with business type people for their living.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> .....
> 
> How high of an IQ must one have to be a carpenter?


A carpenter or a carpenter's helper?  There is a huge difference in appearances; carpenter's helpers are seen to be just another carpenter.  To rise in the ranks of carpenter's more intelligence is needed than you might suppose.
.


----------



## Meister (Jul 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Though his overall approval rating remains sturdy, President Obama is losing support among independents, particularly in swing states, polls show. This is a huge sea change that is playing itself out in American politics, says a Democratic pollster. Obama fell 6 points last week from the week before among independents, Gallup finds; Quinnipiac University cited a 5-point drop between June and early July, Politico notes. 

A plurality of 48% of Ohio independents disapproved of Obamas job performance in a Quinnipiac poll, while his overall approval rating among Ohioans fell 8 points over two months. Independents who had become effectively operational Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are now up for grabs and are trending Republican, says the pollster. But an Obama adviser noted that the presidents numbers were historically strong, citing a 59% approval rating in June among independents, according to Gallup. 

Obama's Independent Support Wanes - Politics News Briefs | Newser
Old Rocks....you always prove what an idiot you are.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...


Sorry, my dingbat disgronifier is broken.

Anyone out there have any idea what this yo-yo is talking about??


----------



## Meister (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I think he's trying to say..."we won, you lost, get over it." Either that, or he's saying he's gay,  I dunno though, Old Rocks is a moron.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> nevermind, i found it myself
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> and a lot claim to be independent as well



I know this is going to disappoint all the leftists gleefully dancing around right now, but I want to know their methodology.  How did they define "scientist"?  How did they go about finding these results?  I'm going to assume they didn't talk to every single solitary person employed in a scientific capacity in the United States, so who DID they talk to?  What exactly were the questions they asked?  I didn't see any of this mentioned in the story.

I also find myself extremely skeptical of the "97% of scientists think the Bush Administration suppressed findings" result.  All that entire section told ME is that scientists are like every other person in America:  obsessed with their own importance, and hanging around with people similarly obsessed for the same reasons.  Is it surprising that scientists hang out with each other and talk about how "persecuted" they are, versus non-scientists not caring enough to exchange conspiracy theories on the subject?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



And, like academics (who are also disproportionately leftist), they live their lives with a certain amount of insulation from reality.


----------



## Meister (Jul 12, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



Exactly, they see life and studies as black and white, with no shades of gray.  The real world is full of shades of gray, it's called intangibles.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



It's amazing how life, the universe, and human nature flatly refuse to behave like the computer models, isn't it?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 12, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


that tends to happen mostly because they enter in faulty data to begin with


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

chanel said:


> As a public high school teacher I have witnessed first hand the dumbing down of America. If libs continue this course of destruction only 6 percent of our scientists will consider themselves "American"



Given what you have posted, I would have to say the you are instrumental in the process of the dumbing down of America.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> God this board is awash in narrow minded assholes.



Well, yes. After all, Consevatives are legally allowed to express their 'thoughts'. It's written into the Constitution, your know.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

American Horse said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > God this board is awash in narrow minded assholes.
> ...



Given the fact that I constantly work with engineers, I have not that high opinion of their competance. And a millwright does work with his hands. Most I know are moderately liberal, or extremely conservative. Doesn't seem to be much in between.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

American Horse said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Silly asses. I am a Millwright, not a carpenter. Although I have a very high respect for competant carpenters. It is a differant set of skills and mindset.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > nevermind, i found it myself
> ...



US scientists fight political meddling
Colin Macilwain & Geoff Brumfiel

Top of pageAbstractNobel laureate attacks government's suppression of research findings.

The rift between US scientists and the administration of President George W. Bush widened last weekend, as Nobel-prizewinning biologist David Baltimore used the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)in St Louis to denounce government suppression of scientific findings.


Access : US scientists fight political meddling : Nature


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Science under attack
Top of pageAbstractResearchers are increasingly upset with the Bush administration, not for its tactics but for its entire operational philosophy.

The highlight of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) last week was an impassioned session in which scientific leaders, including molecular biologist David Baltimore, made clear their views on the fraught relationship between science and the Bush administration.

The discussion was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the wake of revelations about how the administration's political appointees have sought to control the messages communicated by scientists to the public, including attempts by the NASA press office to muzzle climate scientist James Hansen (see page 896).

And judging from the response at a packed and emotional hall in St Louis, a great many US scientists now believe that the Bush administration is prepared not only to ignore scientific facts in making policy decisions, but also to suppress findings that conflict with its own priorities.

For Baltimore &#8212; Nobel laureate, outgoing president of the California Institute of Technology, president-elect of the AAAS, and arguably the most eminent voice in all of American science &#8212; events have reached a tipping point. He suggested that the Bush administration's approach to science stems from its adherence to a particular philosophy of government, that of a 'unitary executive'. Instead of resignedly shrugging their shoulders whenever such a case of scientific manipulation arises, Baltimore argued, scientists need to recognize the potency of the threat that this governmental philosophy represents to the long-cherished independence of US science.
Science under attack: Nature


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

DAVID B. RESNIK

Freedom of Speech in Government Science

Since the early 1990s, researchers, scholars, journalists, and professional organizations have published hundreds of articles, books, and reports on the ethical problems related to industry-funded science, addressing such concerns as conflicts of interest, suppression of data and results, ghost authorship, and abuse of intellectual property laws. Although the investigative spotlight has focused on privatized science in the past 15 years, government science has received relatively little attention until recently. Three important publications&#8212;the Union of Concerned Scientists&#8217; report Scientific Integrity in Policy Making, Chris Mooney&#8217;s book The Republican War on Science, and Seth Shulman&#8217;s book Undermining Science&#8212; have highlighted some of the ethical problems, such as limitations on free speech, politicization of scientific advisory panels, conflicts of interest, and bias, that can occur in government science.

According to Mooney, President George W. Bush&#8217;s administration has attempted to prevent government scientists from expressing their views about global climate change. James E. Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), said that public affairs staff members were reviewing his upcoming lectures, papers, media interviews, and Web postings. Hansen accused NASA administrators of trying to censor information that he planned to share with the public. NASA officials denied this accusation, claiming that Hansen&#8217;s public statements were not given special scrutiny and that all NASA scientists must have their media interviews reviewed by public affairs staff members to ensure coordination with the administration&#8217;s policy statements. Hansen countered that the administration was trying to intimidate him and that it had taken similar actions to prevent other researchers from communicating with the public about global warming.
Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 2008, Perspectives: Freedom of Speech in Government Science


----------



## American Horse (Jul 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


Rocks, I too have worked with engineers over a period of 35 years.  Always the guys who did the physical work complained about the competence of the engineers, and architects.  I just put it down as "penis envy".  My experience was that they provided very accurate data to work from.  Once a 3" error in a short road cut cost me about $3,000 to correct. I could've complained about "incompetence" after that, but it would've been based on that one incident, not many.


----------



## xsited1 (Jul 13, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> ...



Something else this study implies:  many scientists have a liberal bias.  Of course, this is to be expected since most get their funding from public grants and they certainly don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.  There are a few (like myself) in private industry that would be more inclined to vote for smaller government, but most know who pays their salary.  This is another reason why government employees should be kept to a minimum.  Most will vote for politicians that will keep government programs alive so they can keep their jobs, even if those government programs are wasteful and unnecessary.  And once the money runs out, the country goes bankrupt.  Game over.


----------



## bk1983 (Jul 13, 2009)

American Horse said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > God this board is awash in narrow minded assholes.
> ...








Only 10% of industry scientists aka private sector identify themselves as Republican. So whether they depend on Government funding or not scientist are overwhelmingly Democrats.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 13, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


 What a testament to the influence of the educational system during their formative college years and how far up they have their heads in the clouds rather than to giving a lot whole of thought to the 'down to Earth' problems facing Americans.  And  again I bring up Engineers as a comparably educated class; what about them?


----------



## bk1983 (Jul 13, 2009)

American Horse said:


> bk1983 said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



I don't know if there is a poll for Engineers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the findings were similar to this poll on scientists.


----------



## Caligirl (Jul 13, 2009)

I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) but because scientists tend to be 

- less religious
- more interested in higher education
- less business oriented (please don't ask me to balance a checkbook!)
- philosophically oriented (the Ph in PhD)

-etc

And, anyone that is a square peg to begin with is going to gravitate to areas where they will be accepted. ie gays and atheists are completely accepted in science fields,  etc, which also feeds into the whole mentality of the workplace. 

and this is ALL kinda more in line with the liberal side of america than the conservative (and particularly, the religious conservative) side of america. 

No doubt the regular interaction with people from all over the world affects people in science, too. 

Hunh, is this part of the idea that science and religion are at war? What a silly idea, btw.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 13, 2009)

Caligirl said:


> I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) <SNIP>


Just to inform you, you should know that NO Republican controls the bureaucracy and the career employees which make that up.  Therefore, none to very little money flows to Republicans in any field of employment when the Republicans are in power.  So as to not leave this unsaid, the captains of corporate industry are also mostly liberals which accounts for the ease with which the liberal Obama administration feels little reserve about channeling money to Corps, but very little if any  to small businesses.  Keep in mind that the vast majority of these big corporate CEOs come out of the large Eastern business schools. Not getting their education there, small business CEOs are far more conservative than are the large corporate CEO, and therefore are far more likely to belong to the R party. 

All the rest of what you have said makes sense.


----------



## bk1983 (Jul 13, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Caligirl said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) <SNIP>
> ...



You have a link or anything to verify what you are claiming? Or are you just spouting off with grand assumptions?


----------



## rdean (Aug 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Peer review.  The best known journals are extremely stringent when it comes to papers they might publish, and if it's not of a very high quality, they will reject the papers.
Usually, the review is in a two tier process.  The first being their own board of review.  The second being an outside board of review.  They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

Why is the right so ignorant when it comes to science?  They make these sweeping statements they know nothing about.  I just don't get it.  What's worse, they depend on science for everything.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



Untrue.  Peer review is NOT just about "high quality", which anyone who REALLY knows about academia can tell you.  If your paper doesn't match the ideological bent of the journal's editorial board, it doesn't matter how good the work is.  It won't get published.  On the other hand, if a paper has flaws but panders to the editorial point of view, it frequently will get published, and then savaged by critics.

As for "ignorant about science", the day I hear a leftist make ANY science-based argument that isn't riddled with mistakes my 13-year-old wouldn't make, you can talk to me about "ignorant".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2009)

Caligirl said:


> I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) but because scientists tend to be
> 
> - less religious
> - more interested in higher education
> ...



By the way, what you've told us is not that leftists are more likely to go into science, but that leftist-controlled colleges are more likely to hire like-minded people.


----------



## rdean (Aug 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Caligirl said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) but because scientists tend to be
> ...




The right controlled colleges are all tier-four, the lowest rated in the nation (except Notre Dame - they teach evolution).

Wow, you pack so much ignorance into so few words.  Amazing.  Let's see, you know nothing about peer review, nothing about science, nothing about education and yet you have so much confidence and surety.  I have to congratulate you.  Hey, you're not Sarah Palin are you?

Republican scientists may be only 6% of the total, but I suspect their contributions are far, far less.  Tell me you believe in the science of evolution, the foundation science for botany, biology and physiology.  I suspect you don't.  So, was the Flintstones a documentary?  Noah's Ark a true historical event?

How many "supernatural" and "mystical" creatures do you believe in?
A. Angels
B. Leprechauns
C. Demons
D. Fairies
E. Gods or godlike fantasy beings
F.  Ghosts (holy or friendly)
G. Sprites
H. Devils
I. gnomes
J. Trolls
K. Wicked Step Mother
L. Wizards
M. Witches (Sarah Palin believes in witches)

Everything you touch comes from science.  What keeps the country safe comes from science.  What doctors know comes from science.  They must be doing something right.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



More ignorance from an ignoramous. Here is the reality on that subject;

Climate Science Censorship - Federal Scientists Accuse Bush of Climate Science Censorship
Science Fair Experiment
 Dear EarthTalk: How is it that the Bush Administration is said to have &#8220;censored&#8221; climate scientists? 
-- Anna Edelman, Seattle, WA
Word of the White House censoring federal climate scientists on global warming began leaking out to the press early in George W. Bush&#8217;s first term in office, but only in the last few years have a few federal employees themselves been willing to go on record with such accusations.

Federal Employees Report Climate Science Censorship
A report titled &#8220;Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research&#8221;, released last January by two leading nonprofits, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP), found that nearly half of 279 federal climate scientists who responded to a survey reported being pressured to delete references to &#8220;global warming&#8221; or &#8220;climate change&#8221; from scientific papers or reports, while many said they were prevented from talking to the media or had their work on the topic edited.

&#8220;The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic,&#8221; says UCS&#8217;s Francesca Grifo. &#8220;Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.&#8221;

The issue first bubbled to the surface when Rick Piltz, who worked for a decade coordinating federal research on global warming as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program&#8212;first under President Clinton and then Bush&#8212;quit in mid-2005 alleging that his superiors were misusing and abusing the scientific information he was providing


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 9, 2009)

garyd said:


> There aren't any Republican controlled colleges that aren't Called West Point, the Airforce Academy of the the naval Academy. And frankly there's more academic freedom there than on most other college campuses in the country.
> 
> And yes I was referencing professors not the student body. Which by the way would be obvious if you weren't woring on your masters in douche baggery.



Religious intolerance and conflict in the Air Force Academy

According to the Associated Press in 2005-AUG, allegations surfaced:

"...that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive....An Air Force task force concluded that some students and staff at the school have the perception that the academy favors evangelical Christians and is intolerant of those who do not share their faith." 1

The Associated Press reported that the Academy's No. 2 chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton, said that she was fired for speaking up about religious intolerance among cadets and staff. She co-wrote a report in 2004 which criticized "strident" evangelizing of cadets by [conservative] Christian officers. She alleged that evangelical Christians wield too much influence at the Academy. Major General Charles Baldwin, the Air Force's chief chaplain said that she wasn't fired, only reassigned to Japan. 2

The Air Force issued an interim set of guidelines at the end of 2005-AUG concerning the free exercise of religion . The guidelines are to be applied beyond just the Air Force Academy; they apply to all Air Force personnel. They may eventually be enforced across the entire Armed Forces.

Harper's Magazine reported in their 2009-MAY issue that evangelical Christian proselytization and lack of religious freedom continues within the U.S. military.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Caligirl said:
> ...



Topic-hopping.  Next time, just admit that you can't dispute the fact that leftists in colleges refuse to hire anyone besides other leftists, and let it go at that.



rdean said:


> Wow, you pack so much ignorance into so few words.  Amazing.  Let's see, you know nothing about peer review, nothing about science, nothing about education and yet you have so much confidence and surety.  I have to congratulate you.  Hey, you're not Sarah Palin are you?



Let's see.  You pack so much nothing into so many words.  "You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."  "You know nothing about science, and just take my word for THAT, because I haven't actually heard you say anything about any scientific topics, but I just KNOW that if you did, it would be wrong."  "You know nothing about education, that's just the same as science, but I'm SURE it's true."  "And hey, I can stick in a gratuitous swipe at a totally unrelated conservative celebrity, just to suck up to all the other leftists and make them think I'm clever."

Yeah, I have confidence and surety.  I spent years helping to prepare papers for submission to scientific journals, and only a fool or a liar claims that it's a completely objective, high- and pure-minded process.  I'm also sure and confident because at least part of my post referred to conversation I PERSONALLY have had on this board.  Were you here for them? No.  Even if you were, you wouldn't be better-positioned than me to speak to what happened.



rdean said:


> Republican scientists may be only 6% of the total, but I suspect their contributions are far, far less.



I must have missed the point where I begged you to fill me in on your narrow-minded, bigoted hatred.



rdean said:


> Tell me you believe in the science of evolution, the foundation science for botany, biology and physiology.  I suspect you don't.  So, was the Flintstones a documentary?  Noah's Ark a true historical event?



Tell me you've EVER bothered to read any of the discussions on the subject of evolution, instead of just taking it as gospel that evolution was totally settled, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the only item in the entire scientific universe that could never, EVER be questioned.  Yeah, that's what I thought, Science Boy.

And while you're telling me things, tell me you believe that a fetus is a living human organism.  Medical science and biology do, but I have yet to meet a leftist who's caught up with the times and stopped spouting nonsense like "clump of cells", "tissue mass", and my personal favorite scientific description, "potential person".



rdean said:


> How many "supernatural" and "mystical" creatures do you believe in?
> A. Angels
> B. Leprechauns
> C. Demons
> ...



I actually know some witches, who would be quite offended by you saying they don't exist.

As far as imaginary creatures go, I'm glad scientists of the past didn't have your blinkered, materialistic viewpoint when it came to "fantasies" like viruses, cells, mitochondria, black holes, Pluto . . .  We'd have never learned a damned thing if REAL scientists were as self-satisfied, arrogant, and uncurious as you are.

It must suck to live in a universe small and boring enough to be encompassed by your personal experience and understanding.



rdean said:


> Everything you touch comes from science.  What keeps the country safe comes from science.  What doctors know comes from science.  They must be doing something right.



Yeah, and the problem is that doofuses like you don't know thing one about what they're doing, while proclaiming to worship at their altar.  Pitiful.


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 9, 2009)

Caligirl said:


> I'm a scientist (PhD), ...



PhD in what?


----------



## rdean (Aug 9, 2009)

I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie".  You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie?  FOFLOL.

That is too, too funny.  Really.  

So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"?  Can they make "things happen"?  Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?

Philosophy in science?  Not sure what that means.  It's "science".

You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".

I said:

Peer Review:  Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

You said:

"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it." 

Which of course, isn't what I said.

Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel.  Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie".  You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie?  FOFLOL.
> 
> That is too, too funny.  Really.
> 
> ...


wow, you dont know SOOOO much


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie".  You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie?  FOFLOL.



Actually, I believe evolution is an unproven theory that is being promoted as though it's a religion by uneducated _poseurs _like you.  Unlike you, I have no real stake in it being true or false, because the things I believe will still be there either way.

And if evolution is the "foundation science" of biology, why is it that Gregor Mendel, the father of modern biology and a contemporary of Charles Darwin, thought he was a crackpot?  In fact, how is it he managed to father modern biology without this so-called "foundation science"?



rdean said:


> That is too, too funny.  Really.



I'd imagine any serious attempt by you to actually explain how evolution is "foundational" to any of these areas would be even funnier.



rdean said:


> So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"?  Can they make "things happen"?  Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?



Clearly, someone needs to teach you the difference between television and reality, little boy.  Call me when you move out of short pants.



rdean said:


> Philosophy in science?  Not sure what that means.  It's "science".
> 
> You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".



Are you schizophrenic?  This made absolutely no sense, completely aside from the fact that Pratchett didn't write the "Myth" books.  Robert Asprin did.



rdean said:


> I said:
> 
> Peer Review:  Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".
> 
> ...



Actually, Schizo Boy, that quote from me wasn't in reference to the quote you gave from yourself.  It was in reference to your "Wow, you pack so much ignorance into so few words. Amazing. Let's see, you know nothing about peer review, nothing about science, nothing about education and yet you have so much confidence and surety. I have to congratulate you. Hey, you're not Sarah Palin are you?"  Which would be why I quoted that particular paragraph when I said it.  Duhhh.

To spell it out for you, Oh champion of intellectual academia, it's easy to say, "That's just ignorant", and not so easy to actually PROVE it, which I assume is why you said it and didn't prove it.



rdean said:


> Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel.  Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.



Oh, yeah.  The Science Channel.  THAT'LL getcha edumacated about science, 'n' shit.  Why bother with that silly "going to college" thing when you can just flip on the cable TV?


----------



## rdean (Aug 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie".  You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie?  FOFLOL.
> ...



I know a little.  Which is more than some.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie".  You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie?  FOFLOL.
> ...



That was absolutely the saddest thing I've seen all day.  How about you?


----------



## rdean (Aug 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie".  You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie?  FOFLOL.
> ...





Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie".  You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie?  FOFLOL.
> ...



Sorry, I guess I got a little enthusiastic.  "Evolution" an "unproven theory?  That just flabbergasts me.  How can you even hint that you are any type of scientist and say that?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I never said I was a scientist, dumbass.  I'm just an educated adult who spent sixteen years working in the medical and education fields.

How can you claim to be educated and suck so badly at reading comprehension?  THAT is the question that flabbergasts me.

Here is what one scientist, Nobel laureate Ernst Chain, said in 1972, though:  "The Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution . . . is based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory . . . I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation."  Hey, why don't you go tell HIM that he's not "any type of scientist" to say that?

Gregor Mendel, father of modern biology, actually worked from findings that directly contradicted Darwin's theories.  Go dig him up and tell him he wasn't a scientist.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 9, 2009)

Well hell.

I thought this thread was going to say that 6% of scientists think the other 94% suck ass....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> Well hell.
> 
> I thought this thread was going to say that 6% of scientists think the other 94% suck ass....



They're probably too tactful to say so out loud.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Well hell.
> ...


Well,I was thinking that the formula was at least two blackboards...


----------



## rdean (Aug 9, 2009)

What do you think Ernst Chain, would have said if he lived a few years longer and "observed" the fact that microbes "evolve" and develop immunity to penicillin?  Wow, it's just too bad.  Of course, when people are indoctrinated into mysticism at a very early age, many times, they simply can't over come that indoctrination.  No matter how much evidence, they will refuse to see it.

You said:  Gregor Mendel, father of modern biology, actually worked from findings that directly contradicted Darwin's theories.

That is a totally idiotic thing to say. Darwin didn't know how traits were passed from generation to generation.  So he guessed.  That's why it's called a "theory".  Mendel's work filled in the gaps of Darwin's work.  But that happened by scientists years later who brought their work together.  Mendel's work complimented Darwin's work, not disproved it.  

I hope that who ever you "educated" doesn't have your address because they would want their money back.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> What do you think Ernst Chain, would have said if he lived a few years longer and "observed" the fact that microbes "evolve" and develop immunity to penicillin?  Wow, it's just too bad.  Of course, when people are indoctrinated into mysticism at a very early age, many times, they simply can't over come that indoctrination.  No matter how much evidence, they will refuse to see it.



I think Ernst Chain would probably have said the same thing that Selman Waksman, creator of streptomycin to treat tuberculosis, said:  "The concept of the 'struggle for existence' has been applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life.  It has also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an antibiotic substance enables it to survive in competition for space and for nutrients with other microbes.  Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge . . . All the discussion of a 'struggle for existence', in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual."

He didn't think evolution was necessary to his work, either.

Truth is, Chain and the others were already aware of adaptation.  Bacteria aren't doing anything that was new and strange to them.  They also aren't doing anything that constitutes proof of evolution between species, because tuberculosis bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria.  They didn't become a different species.



rdean said:


> You said:  Gregor Mendel, father of modern biology, actually worked from findings that directly contradicted Darwin's theories.
> 
> That is a totally idiotic thing to say. Darwin didn't know how traits were passed from generation to generation.  So he guessed.  That's why it's called a "theory".  Mendel's work filled in the gaps of Darwin's work.  But that happened by scientists years later who brought their work together.  Mendel's work complimented Darwin's work, not disproved it.



Sorry, but you're wrong, on several counts.  First, "theory" does not mean "wild-assed guess".  Darwin DID guess, and he was dead wrong.  That is one of the many reasons why I and others view his work as highly-suspect and unproven theory instead of settled science.  Second, Mendel's work didn't "fill in the gaps of Darwin's work", nor did it "complement" it, nor was it "brought together" with it.  It directly contradicted it.

Mendel's data - because he was a real, working scientist, not a hack theorist dreaming up guesses - led him to conclude that heredity involved the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism's traits.  Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.

Darwin's view of heredity was quite different.  He believed that every cell in an organism produced "gemmules" that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called "pangenesis".  The advantage of Darwin's view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change.  The disadvantage was that it was bullshit.

As you can see, Mendel's theory was directly contradictory to Darwin's.  This is why Mendel's work, published in 1866, was totally ignored by Darwinists for more than thirty years.  William Bateson, one of the scientists who "rediscovered" Mendelian genetics at the turn of the century, wrote that the cause for this lack of interest was "unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines . . . The question, it was imagined, had been answered and the debate ended."  I guess he wasn't impressed with Darwin, either.

By the 1930s, however, the evidence had corroborated Mendelian genetics.  Darwinists abandoned "pangenesis" and subsumed Mendelism in a "neo-Darwinian synthesis" that still dominates evolutionary biology.  I guess plagiarism is what you call "bringing their work together", huh?

If Darwinism contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and biology, how can it now be at its core?



rdean said:


> I hope that who ever you "educated" doesn't have your address because they would want their money back.



What classes did your school teach?  "Puerile Insults 101"?  Instead of telling me over and over how stupid and wrong I am, how about you present some proof?  As for me being "mystical and superstitious", I hope you notice that YOU are the only one talking about it, and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here.


----------



## noose4 (Aug 10, 2009)

Modbert said:


> 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> 
> How unsurprising
> 
> ...



shocking!!!! i bet 80% of those who believe the earth is 6000 years old fall in on the republican side though.


----------



## rdean (Aug 10, 2009)

Truth is, Chain and the others were already aware of adaptation.  Bacteria aren't doing anything that was new and strange to them.  They also aren't doing anything that constitutes proof of evolution between species, because tuberculosis bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria.  They didn't become a different species.

-----Adaptation - what is it?  Evolution.  Natural selection.  Since bacteria are asexual, how do you know that they aren't a "new species"?  Evolutionary changes are small changes that happen over such a long period of time, the creatures diverge.  We can plainly see that today.  Tiger and Lion make "Liger", Horse and donkey make mule.  Of course, they have diverged so much, the chromosomes no longer line up so you get defects like "sterility" or "unchecked growth".  We know from fossil records and genetics exactly when these creatures "split".  Look at the huge differences between the dog and the wolf.  Eventually, they will drift so far apart, they will have the same problems as large cats and equines. 

First, "theory" does not mean "wild-assed guess".  

---------But it wasn't "wild-assed guess".  He could see the evolutionary changes in the different creatures at the Galapagos Islands.  As to the exact method of that change, he was wrong, but his guess was based on visual observation.  And a very good guess it was.

Second, Mendel's work didn't "fill in the gaps of Darwin's work", nor did it "complement" it, nor was it "brought together" with it.  It directly contradicted it.

-----------Only the method, not the theory itself.

Mendel's data - because he was a real, working scientist, not a hack theorist dreaming up guesses - led him to conclude that heredity involved the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism's traits.  Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.

-----------From one generation to the next.  Look at dogs.  You breed two dogs together that are a little smaller.  Every generation, you breed the two smallest dogs together.  You may not see a change from generation to generation, but over many generations, you end up with Chihuahua.  We have only been doing that for a hundred thousand years, but the same process happened between lions and tigers for millions of years and look at the result.  

Darwin's view of heredity was quite different.  He believed that every cell in an organism produced "gemmules" that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called "pangenesis".  The advantage of Darwin's view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change.  The disadvantage was that it was bullshit.

-----------That is a very good description of Darwin's theory, not about evolution per se, but how characteristics were passes.  Almost like paint.  A darker and lighter shade will always make one right in the middle.  That is where Mendel proved him wrong.

By the 1930s, however, the evidence had corroborated Mendelian genetics.  Darwinists abandoned "pangenesis" and subsumed Mendelism in a "neo-Darwinian synthesis" that still dominates evolutionary biology.  I guess plagiarism is what you call "bringing their work together", huh?

----------Because they truly were brought together.  Now we can trace species movement though genetics and fossils.  We know when species separated from a common ancestor. 

If Darwinism contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and biology, how can it now be at its core?

------------That is your "mule headed" assumption.  The theory of Evolution is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.

and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here.

-------------Some of what you talked was science.  But twisted.  You know that at your core are "mystical beliefs".  It's as clear as the nose that "evolved" onto your face.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 10, 2009)

rdean said:


> Truth is, Chain and the others were already aware of adaptation.  Bacteria aren't doing anything that was new and strange to them.  They also aren't doing anything that constitutes proof of evolution between species, because tuberculosis bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria.  They didn't become a different species.
> 
> -----Adaptation - what is it?  Evolution.  Natural selection.



Sorry, but that's a dodge, and a lame one at that.  In advertising, it's called "bait and switch":  I show you one thing that's completely uncontroversial and never, EVER been disputed (adaption) and then go, "Ta DAHHH!" and blur it with something completely different (evolution).  Change within a species does not in any way prove change between species, and it's not only unscientific, but dishonest, to pretend that it does.



rdean said:


> Since bacteria are asexual, how do you know that they aren't a "new species"?



I'm sorry, did you SERIOUSLY just ask me how microbiologists know that tuberculosis bacteria are tuberculosis bacteria?  Seriously?!

And what does "asexual" have to do with knowing what species of bacteria they are?



rdean said:


> Evolutionary changes are small changes that happen over such a long period of time, the creatures diverge.



Excuse me, but evolutionary changes - changes between species - are ALLEGED to happen over a long period of time, since no one can actually provide conclusive evidence of them ACTUALLY happening.  All there is are guesses, _a la _Charles Darwin, that they "must have" happened.

And converge?  When did THAT become evolutionary theory, that species were coming together and joining, as opposed to branching out?  What the hell have you been smoking?



rdean said:


> We can plainly see that today.  Tiger and Lion make "Liger", Horse and donkey make mule.



Ligers, tigons, and mules are not examples of evolution in the wild, you pinhead.  They're deliberate human-created crossbreeds of animals from the same genus.  Can you please tell me how human interference "proves" random natural evolution?



rdean said:


> Of course, they have diverged so much, the chromosomes no longer line up so you get defects like "sterility" or "unchecked growth".  We know from fossil records and genetics exactly when these creatures "split".  Look at the huge differences between the dog and the wolf.  Eventually, they will drift so far apart, they will have the same problems as large cats and equines.



Dogs from wolves are ALSO examples of deliberate human breeding.  And you can't prove jack about evolution from fossil records.  You're just talking out of your ass right now.



rdean said:


> First, "theory" does not mean "wild-assed guess".
> 
> ---------But it wasn't "wild-assed guess".  He could see the evolutionary changes in the different creatures at the Galapagos Islands.



No, as a matter of fact, he couldn't, and it WAS wild-assed guesses, because it was WRONG.  That's a dead giveaway of a wild-assed guess.



rdean said:


> As to the exact method of that change, he was wrong, but his guess was based on visual observation.  And a very good guess it was.



No, it WASN'T a good guess, because it was WRONG.  That is also a hallmark of a bad guess, being wrong.  

And it's clear that you know nothing about what he observed on Galapagos, because it wasn't evolution.  It was minor adaptation, which didn't even last.



rdean said:


> Second, Mendel's work didn't "fill in the gaps of Darwin's work", nor did it "complement" it, nor was it "brought together" with it.  It directly contradicted it.
> 
> -----------Only the method, not the theory itself.



The method WAS the theory, you dink.  What the holy hell do you think we're talking about here, anyway?  Do you really think all this hullabaloo is over the painfully obvious and boring observation that things change over time?  Is THAT what you seriously believe Darwin's theory of evolution was?  



rdean said:


> Mendel's data - because he was a real, working scientist, not a hack theorist dreaming up guesses - led him to conclude that heredity involved the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism's traits.  Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.
> 
> -----------From one generation to the next.  Look at dogs.  You breed two dogs together that are a little smaller.  Every generation, you breed the two smallest dogs together.  You may not see a change from generation to generation, but over many generations, you end up with Chihuahua.  We have only been doing that for a hundred thousand years, but the same process happened between lions and tigers for millions of years and look at the result.



One more time, halfwit.  Deliberate, intelligent interference by humans - ie. breeding dogs - is not evidence of evolution.  You might consider it an example of intelligent design, since that's essentially what it is, but it absolutely in no way bears any relation to evolutionary theory, unless your evolutionary theory happens to be some greater intellect breeding Earth's species like pedigreed dogs.

Oh, by the way.  When you breed dogs, you DO see change from generation to generation.  You have to, since dog breeders don't live for centuries.  



rdean said:


> Darwin's view of heredity was quite different.  He believed that every cell in an organism produced "gemmules" that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called "pangenesis".  The advantage of Darwin's view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change.  The disadvantage was that it was bullshit.
> 
> -----------That is a very good description of Darwin's theory, not about evolution per se, but how characteristics were passes.  Almost like paint.  A darker and lighter shade will always make one right in the middle.  That is where Mendel proved him wrong.



Insofar as Darwin's theory of evolution WAS "how characteristics were passed", I did, indeed, just describe his theory.

And no, genetics don't work like paint at all.  Did you even take biology in high school?



rdean said:


> By the 1930s, however, the evidence had corroborated Mendelian genetics.  Darwinists abandoned "pangenesis" and subsumed Mendelism in a "neo-Darwinian synthesis" that still dominates evolutionary biology.  I guess plagiarism is what you call "bringing their work together", huh?
> 
> ----------Because they truly were brought together.  Now we can trace species movement though genetics and fossils.  We know when species separated from a common ancestor.



No, they were not "brought together".  Darwinists just quietly plagiarized Mendel's work and claimed it was "always" part of Darwinism.

And you know absolutely bupkis about fossils.



rdean said:


> If Darwinism contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and biology, how can it now be at its core?
> 
> ------------That is your "mule headed" assumption.  The theory of Evolution is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.



No, it's a fact.  Biologists made huge strides in the field before Darwin was ever born, and throughout his entire life and through much of the twentieth century without ever paying any attention to his work.  Darwinism cannot be the core of something that began and thrived without it.

The theory of evolution is unproven guessing, touted by moronic _poseurs _like you who can't even make a coherent argument for it, but just KNOW that it must be true, because you've been told that all educated people believe it.  It's sad to watch.

and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here.



rdean said:


> -------------Some of what you talked was science.  But twisted.  You know that at your core are "mystical beliefs".  It's as clear as the nose that "evolved" onto your face.



I'll tell you what.  When you can pull your head out long enough to make a cogent scientific argument, THEN you may presume to tell me what I "know" is at my core.  Until such time as your OWN beliefs aren't clear as mud to you, you have no room to say anything about my "mysticism".  What's clear to ME is that my belief system has served me better in the realm of being educated and informed than your so-called "scientific" approach.


----------



## rdean (Aug 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200
Sorry, but that's a dodge, and a lame one at that.  In advertising, it's called "bait and switch":  I show you one thing that's completely uncontroversial and never, EVER been disputed (adaption) and then go, "Ta DAHHH!" and blur it with something completely different (evolution).  Change within a species does not in any way prove change between species, and it's not only unscientific, but dishonest, to pretend that it does.

--------No, it's not a dodge.  At least you admit there IS change.  Take two groups, separate them and come back a million years later and see if they are still the same species.  Of course you can't wait around a million years.  You can't actually view plate tectonics.  Do you believe it's true? Does it happen?  Isn't it "just a theory"?

Excuse me, but evolutionary changes - changes between species - are ALLEGED to happen over a long period of time, since no one can actually provide conclusive evidence of them ACTUALLY happening.  All there is are guesses, _a la _Charles Darwin, that they "must have" happened.

------------The problem is that you still think in terms of 1977.  The understanding of evolution has grown way beyond a single subject in some colleges.  But speaking of fossils, I have one comment to make about that.  Scientists have discovered that at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, the fossils are simple and as they move up through the rock layers, they become more complex.  The age of the Grand Canyon is pretty much undisputed to be around two billion years old, unless you believe that it was the result of "Noah's Flood".  'scuz me, I had to stop for a second and stop laughing.  Now, if it was "created" as a result of "Noah's Flood", then how did all the primitive and simple fossils end up on the bottom and not mixed all together?  'scuz me, I had to stop laughing again.

And converge?  When did THAT become evolutionary theory, that species were coming together and joining, as opposed to branching out?  What the hell have you been smoking?

--------converge?  Did I say that? I didn't see it anywhere.

Ligers, tigons, and mules are not examples of evolution in the wild, you pinhead.  They're deliberate human-created crossbreeds of animals from the same genus.  Can you please tell me how human interference "proves" random natural evolution?

-----------But the fact that they can breed doesn't prove that they had a recent shared ancestor?  Listening to you, you get the impressions that all the animals that ever were just sprang up exactly they way they are now.  Every species of feline, every species of canine, every species of primate.  Wait a second.  You do believe that, don't you?  Careful, someone might suspect you had a closed mind with a hidden agenda.

Dogs from wolves are ALSO examples of deliberate human breeding.  And you can't prove jack about evolution from fossil records.  You're just talking out of your ass right now.

--------Actually, you can prove that at one time, Kangaroos were carnivorous and had large canines they probably used to stab their victims.  It's in the fossil record.  At one time they were carnivorous, millions of years later, they weren't.  Unless, you, with your super detective skills could come up with a better explanation.

And it's clear that you know nothing about what he observed on Galapagos, because it wasn't evolution.  It was minor adaptation, which didn't even last.

--------Didn't even last? All the different types of finches with wildly varying beaks?  Because the food sources change, the animals adapted to attain that food.  "Natural Selection"?

The method WAS the theory, you dink.  What the holy hell do you think we're talking about here, anyway?  Do you really think all this hullabaloo is over the painfully obvious and boring observation that things change over time?  Is THAT what you seriously believe Darwin's theory of evolution was?

----------That things change over time?  Well, yea.  'scuz me.  I had stop laughing again.

One more time, halfwit.  Deliberate, intelligent interference by humans - ie. breeding dogs - is not evidence of evolution.  You might consider it an example of intelligent design, since that's essentially what it is, but it absolutely in no way bears any relation to evolutionary theory, unless your evolutionary theory happens to be some greater intellect breeding Earth's species like pedigreed dogs.

-------Well, actually, whether it's changes in nature bringing out certain biological aspects or people doing it on purpose, what it does demonstrate is the ability to adapt.  What ever the agent of change, change happens.

Oh, by the way.  When you breed dogs, you DO see change from generation to generation.  You have to, since dog breeders don't live for centuries.  

--------No, but dogs can start breeding after barely 18 months.  That means many generations in a single human lifetime.  That wasn't "obvious"? By the way, take a look at us.  Since the human genome project, it's estimated that some peoples genes can be reviewed going back 150,000 years.  This is how we know we all came from Africa.  As groups split off and when their own way, it is verified in the fossil record and by the age of the rocks the fossils show up in.  Unless that's all a lie too?

And no, genetics don't work like paint at all.  Did you even take biology in high school?

-------------Of course I took biology.  I know that inherited characteristics don't work like paint, ah, but Darwin didn't know that.  That was "his" theory.  You so desperately wanted an "aha" moment, you subscribed that theory to me.  I never said that.  I said Darwin said that and Mendel disproved it.

No, they were not "brought together".  Darwinists just quietly plagiarized Mendel's work and claimed it was "always" part of Darwinism.

-------------That is just not true.  Modern evolutionary theory is, in part natural selection.  Because of Natural selection, species change over time. lots of time. But there is also genetic drift, gene flow (inter breeding), mutation and recombination.  You see, the best of both theories became on unified theory that is considered the Modern Theory of Evolution.

And you know absolutely bupkis about fossils.

-------------How would you know that?  Do you even know what a fossil is?  Some religious people believe God put bones in the ground so dogs have something to dig up.  Others believe that God put bones in the ground to show us what creatures on other planets look like.  Are those your beliefs?

The theory of evolution is unproven guessing, touted by moronic _poseurs _like you who can't even make a coherent argument for it, but just KNOW that it must be true, because you've been told that all educated people believe it.  It's sad to watch.

and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here.

---------If what you are talking is science, then it has a new synonym - delusion.  I have to admit, you had me laughing many times.  What was especially fun was that I didn't have to look hardly anything up.  Your arguments were so easy to refute even based on what little I know.  I would love to watch you talk to a real biologist or an actual medical doctor and tell them your "theories" and "proofs".  Laughter is great medicine and when it comes to science and humor, you are a pharmacist.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 11, 2009)

Observed speciation;

The following are four cases of observed speciation. 1) Speciation occured in a strain of

Some More Observed Speciation Events


----------



## Terry (Aug 11, 2009)

I hate polls but I just got a pew poll call...computer generated questions...on the last question before I can answer they fucking hung up...know why?  Because they didn't like my answers...didn't fit the outcome they were looking for.  Polls are all BS


----------



## rdean (Aug 12, 2009)

Terry said:


> I hate polls but I just got a pew poll call...computer generated questions...on the last question before I can answer they fucking hung up...know why?  Because they didn't like my answers...didn't fit the outcome they were looking for.  Polls are all BS



If they didn't like your answers, perhaps it was actually a "sales pitch"?  

I suspect no serious business would act that way.  They would lose credibility and they would go out of business.  I'm not disputing you.  I just find it hard to believe that professionals wouldn't act, well, professional.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Aug 18, 2009)

Someone may already have said what I'm going to say.  I'd might have to read a whole bunch of posts in this thread to know and I'm not going to do that.  But:

It is very possible that there is a "left" bias among scientists.

I wish this was the other message board I frequent most so you would be familiar with some of my past statements.  But I have been  involved in the world of science for many years.  And I've said many times that there is a "left" philosophical bias among the overwhelming majority of scientists.  And I'm not talking about the bias being "justified" by some kind of objective process.  

I'm talking about stuff like being a biologist and talking to other biologists about issues such as whether or not shrimpers should be forced to use Turtle Excluder devices or whether or not a rancher should've been reamed by the Federal government for shooting a bear that first threatened his wildlife then threatened his life.  In my opinion, there is a very palpable environmentalist bias among scientists when it comes to scientists who deal with that.  I think there is also a strong egalitarian bias among social scientists.  Ect. ect.

Of course I'm just me.  You can believe it or not.  But I think that,  if you think that a poll like that is some kind of "validation" of liberal or Democratic Party political positions, you are missing the very real possibility that we have a problem with _philosophical_ bias among scientists.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2009)

Let's cut to the chase.

ID does not belong in a science room.  It belongs in a humanties, religion, or philosopy class.


----------



## rdean (Aug 18, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> Someone may already have said what I'm going to say.  I'd might have to read a whole bunch of posts in this thread to know and I'm not going to do that.  But:
> 
> It is very possible that there is a "left" bias among scientists.
> 
> ...



"The very real possibility that we have a problem with philosophical bias among scientists?"

That is NOT a possibility that I can see.  For one, can you name any "philosophical" examples in science.  Science deals with the world around us NOT mysticism or the "occult"  or "emotional" arguments.  It's all about "facts" and "data" and "observation" from which spring hypothesis and theories.

It's NOT the scientists who have left the Republican party.  It's the very real fact that the Republican party has been taken over by religious zealots and chased out the scientists.  Look at the many, many examples from just the last few years.  The theatrics in Dover, mandatory Bible study in Texas Public Schools.  

Name the benefits to science from religion.  They are opposites.  They do not interact.  One deals with the "real" world and the other with "made up stuff".

In all the years that the right has been trying to push the supernatural into science, not a single paper has ever been presented for review to an established scientific organization.  I'm not saying "reviewed", I'm saying "presented".  There is nothing to present.  Nothing.

Every single thing we eat, wear, our houses, our medicine, our military, everything has been touched by scientists.  

What are the accomplishments of the religious?  They stopped gays from being happy.  They build big churches, like the Chrystal Cathedral.  Of course, they had to get a gay guy to design it, Philip Johnson, and he wasn't allowed in once completed.  And their other accomplishments?  They support war and torture.  They helped "solve" the Christian problem in Iraq.  And yet, they stand on their soapbox and try to convince everyone they are morally superior.  They are not.  Most of the time, they're wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 19, 2009)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



A little knowledge is more dangerous than none sometimes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Let's cut to the chase.
> 
> ID does not belong in a science room.  It belongs in a humanties, religion, or philosopy class.



Yes, let's cut to the chase.

Same for evolution.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 19, 2009)

Texas's mandatory Bible Class
* Link* 


Excerpt: 
As of this school year, all Texas public schools will be required to offer a course on the Bible. Apparently, there are quite a few politicians and school board members in Texas who are either 
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or 
2) actively trying to subvert it. 

Nonsense, said William Mattox Jr.(R-Handjob). You cant effectively explore American history, or even pop culture, without knowing the stories, themes, and words of the Bible. Kudos to the Texas Board of Education for not skirting 
this contentious fight. As long as the teachers avoid engaging in religious indoctrination, these classes should benefit everyone. 

Thats one of the problems with the law, said Jeremy Burchard in The UT Daily Texan. Teachers havent been trained to teach such an explosive topic, and Texas didnt provide funding to instruct them. That means biblical literacy classes will devolve into legally questionable, polarizing free-for-allsand dozens of inevitable lawsuits will follow. 



Why does Texas wage a constant war on science, logic and common sense?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 19, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Let's cut to the chase.
> ...



The overwhelming majority of biologists would disagree with you, so your opinion is worthless.  But I do agree that ID and evolution should both be include in a class on Epistemology.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Texas's mandatory Bible Class
> * Link*
> 
> 
> ...


while i disagree with them doing this
please point out on a map, where Handjob, TX is?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 19, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Texas's mandatory Bible Class
> * Link*
> 
> 
> ...



Loony tunes, I guess.

The class is mandatory only to the point that it is in the cirriculum.  The problem will be to find qualified instructors who will play by the law.  Most schools will never actually hold the class.  Santa Fe ISD, on the other hand (they make the rightard barfbats here look absolutely liberal), will probably thirteen every year, one for each grade and a mandatory one for the teachers and administration and staff.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 19, 2009)

(R-handjob) = Republican handjob....... but I'm willing to bet there is a town called Handjob in Texas.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> (R-handjob) = Republican handjob....... but I'm willing to bet there is a town called Handjob in Texas.


ah, ok, so it wasnt like you were trying to just report on the story
i'll make note not to ever take you serious


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 19, 2009)

yes....I can see that you are a very serious dude.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> yes....I can see that you are a very serious dude.


no, not always, but then i dont choose to editorialize in the middle of a news report

kerry on dude


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > yes....I can see that you are a very serious dude.
> ...



thanx for your permission to continue!....and because you said you weren't serious all the time should I never take you seriously or will you just let me know when you are being serious?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 19, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Texas's mandatory Bible Class
> * Link*
> 
> 
> ...



Every state university in the country, and most of the others, teaches classes in the Bible as literature, for precisely the purpose of acquainting students with its stories, themes, and words so that they can understand it as background to Western culture.  Are you suggesting that our universities are unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for doing so?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Actually, I can name many biologists who would AGREE with me, so all you're really saying is that you consider my opinion worthless because YOU disagree.  Sorry, but THAT is worthless.

I think you either give kids all the info, or at least stop trying to pretend we know things we don't until some concrete evidence turns up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 19, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You know you can't, kitten, so take the nonsense elsewhere.  For a Christian to bear false witness is a sin.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Actually, I can, puppy, and I notice that your approach is to tell me to shut up and try to dismiss me, not to challenge me and debate me.  What're you afraid of?  Is it my religion or the fact that I'm a woman that's got you running like a scalded bitch?  Which one has you scared that your dick is going to shrink even further?


----------



## rdean (Aug 19, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




You can't name one respected biologist that would agree with you.  Not one.  Your arguments are even more lame than Behe's Theory of "Irreducible Complexity".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 19, 2009)

rdean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Ah, goal post-moving.  One of the classic signs of a debater in deep shit.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


and whoever you might name they would discount
works perfect for dishonest assholes like him


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 19, 2009)

Someone sent this to me via email.  Interesting take:



> Some reasons why scientists adopt liberal politicial views:
> 
> 
> They believe that all problems are fixable with the right data, research effort and funding.
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Exactly.  "We only respect people who agree with us, therefore you can't name anyone respected who disagrees with us, therefore we are correct because everyone respected agrees with us, because if they didn't, we wouldn't respect them."

It's circular thinking, insofar as you can consider it thinking at all.


----------



## rdean (Aug 19, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The problem with you is that you simply don't understand the "Scientific method". 

Real scientists start off with observation, collecting data and then making their first hypothesis.  The goal of every credible scientist is to disprove the work of other scientists.  They welcome it.  They want to be proven wrong.  And after everyone checks and double check AND if it stands up the scrutiny, then, it's "considered", but only considered.

THERE IS NO SCRUTINY OF MAGICAL CREATION THAT ISN'T A LAUGH.

Scientists who think like you already know what to expect.  They read it in a book written by primitive desert people who didn't know to wash after wiping.  If they believe that "data" supports their position, they keep it.  If it doesn't support it, they ignore.  The difference is, they already know what they are looking for.  Somebody told them.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 19, 2009)

You can't blame biologists for being somewhat opposed to conservatism.

They saw "intelligent design" as a full fledged assault on their profession.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 19, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



*[Jake grins and sips some coffee, knowing that he has burned the kitten where she sits.  He told her she bore 'false witness', not to shut up.  She has soiled her religion, and her sex is immaterial.  All of the red herrings she has dragged have died and are rotten.  Like an alabaster tomb, she shineth on the outside and stinketh on the inside -- revealed as a Christian hypocrite.  Jake knows he does not need to return to this thread.]*


----------



## rdean (Aug 20, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Running like a scalded bitch?
Your dick is going to shrink even further?

You might consider putting that creative mind to something good and stay away from the nasty and violent imagry.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 20, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The problem with intelligent design or creationism or whatever is not whether or not they are true.  That can never be proven.

The problem is that they rely on the existence of a supernatural power.  In doing so, they automatically remove themselves from the scientfic method, which makes no provisions for entities outside of the natural world.

If these things are to be taught, they can't be taught in the science classroom, as they aren't science.  I suppose you could squeeze them into a philosophy class.

That was the finding of the court in Dover as well.


----------



## rdean (Aug 20, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



"That can never be proven." 

As soon as you made that one statement, you lost the right.  They're argument is if you can imagine the occult, it must be true and real.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 20, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Texas's mandatory Bible Class
> ...



what I am suggesting is that is unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for them to invite lawsuits and act like they are 
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or to act like they are
2) actively trying to subvert it.&#8221;


----------



## JohnStOnge (Aug 20, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> what I am suggesting is that is unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for them to invite lawsuits and act like they are
> 1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or to act like they are
> 2) actively trying to subvert it.&#8221;



Perhaps they DO recognize what the Establishment Clause actually _says_ and are expressing their opposition to the way it's when "interpreted" by the Judiciary.  Here is what it actually says:

*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"*

Violation of the Establishment Clause would involve the Congress of the United States making a law with respect to the establishment of Religion.  Nothing the Texas legislature has done  or even can do violates that clause.  Now, I realize that the Judiciary "interpreted" the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to somehow extend that restriction to State Legislatures, but such an interpretation is laughable.  There is no way those who ratified the 14th Amendment understood that to be the case when they did so.  What we have here is a classic case of the Judiciary making things up.  Maybe some people don't like that.

What we have is the argument that the 1st Amendment saying that the Congress of the United States will make no law respecting estabishment of Religion combined with the 14th Amendment saying "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that a State legislature can't make a law requiring some kind of religous context in education.  That's ridiculous. It really is.

Also, one really has to question the broad manner in which the Supreme Court has interpreted "establishment of religion" because the Congress, shortly after the 1st Amendment was ratified, did such things as start holding Christian church services in the House chamber. 

People really, really need to learn to start making the distinction between what the Constitution actually says and how its language was generally understood by those involved in ratifying any particular portion of it and what the Federal Judiciary "interprets" it to say.  They are two completely different things.  There is no way...none...that the overwhelming majority of those involved in ratifying the 1st Amendment construed it as the Judiciary has distorted it over the years.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Aug 20, 2009)

Now back to the original subject and, again, not having attempted to read the large number of posts in this thread:

I have been involved in the world of applied science for 26 years now.  I've been involved a little in the world of research science too.  One thing I think I've noticed is that the overwhelming majority of those around me have environmentalist leanings.  I like to call it a "Gaian" outlook.  

For instance:  When I was a biologist involved in coastal and fisheries management issues back in the 1980s, the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) issue was prevalent.  My opinion is that there never was reliable information on the number of turtles killed in shrimp nets but, beyond that, my philosophical outlook was that if it came down to a question of human beings retaining their livelihood and certain sea turtle species going extinct, it should be "too bad" for the sea turtles.

One time I was talking to another biologist.  I talked about how I think the estimates of sea turtle mortality due to shrimping were unreliable and also how there's no way we could know whether or not making shrimpers use TEDs would make a difference in whether or not certain sea turtle species went extinct.  But finally I asked her:  If it came down between thousands of people losing their livelihoods and a sea turtle species becoming extinct, which would she choose?  I added the caveat that we assume (and it's probably a pretty good assumption) that sea turtles going extinct would represent no threat to our own species.

Of course, she chose thousands of people losing their livelihoods.

On another occasion I was talking to another biologist about an instance in which a rancher shot a Grizzly bear.  The Grizzly bear was threatening his livestock so he shot some rounds into the air.  The bear charged him so he shot and killed it.  He was then fined by Federal authorities.  Of course, I thought that was ridiculous.

But the other biologist's attitude was, "That Grizzly bear had just as much a right to be there as the rancher did." He was fine with a human being being fined for first trying to save his livestock from a bear attack then acting to save his own life when charged by the bear.

Such attitudes are not the result of being smarter and/or more educated.  They are the result of philosophy.  I don't know why the world of science tends to be disproportionately populated with people I consider to be characterized by egalitarian, environmentalist, etc. philosophy.  But it does not mean that such philosophies are superior or that one would necessarily adopt such philosophies if one were only "smart" or "informed" enough.

Believe me.  It doesn't matter how smart and/or informed I was.  No way would I _ever_ think that preventing a species from becoming extinct trumps everything else nor is there any way I'd ever thing the Federal government is justified in fining a rancher for trying to defend his livestock from a Grizzly bear.

Our species, by the way, would do just fine if both Grizzly bears and sea turtles joined the >99% of other species that have existed on this planet then became extinct.


----------



## rdean (Aug 20, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > what I am suggesting is that is unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for them to invite lawsuits and act like they are
> ...



Are you saying we should be more like Iran?

Funny how the world of science seems to be populated with inventors, and doctors and engineers who build stuff like microwave ovens and big screen TV's and do transplants.  The religious use these things and then trash the people that make them.  While I'm not saying you personally, I'm saying in general, the religious do that.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Aug 20, 2009)

rdean said:


> [
> Are you saying we should be more like Iran?
> .



No, with respect to the post to which you were responding, I'm saying we should understand that what the Constitution actually says is a completely different thing than what the Judiciary has "interpreted" it to say over the years.  There is no way that the doctorine of "Separation of Church and State" established as of today due to Supreme Court "interpretation"  over the years is consistent with what the Establishment Clause actually says or with how it was understood by the people who ratified it. 

Objectively, the language of the establishment clause does not prohibit what the Texas legislature did.  And neither does the language of the 14th Amendment.  

Again, the Establishment Clause imposes a limit on the Congress of the United States.  And it's a real stretch....a stretch that's really too long to even be seriously considered...to say that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment imposes that limit on State legislatures.  

One of these days, hopefully, people will realize that we're not really governed by a Constitution anymore.  We are governed by a gaggle of unelected, unaccountable Federal judges who routinely make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say. 

If the People of the United States choose to institute a Separation of Church and State such as that the Judiciary has imposed; fine.  But it should be the People who do it.  It shouldn't be a situation where unelected and unaccountable Federal Judges impose it by inventing something that isn't really in the Constitution.


----------



## rdean (Aug 22, 2009)

""""Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?""""

And that's what's so cool about science.  We can figure out and learn about those other things.  Bible fables do nothing for me that a good Marvel Comic can't do.

Not directed at anyone in particular, but I don't understand how Republicans can be proud that less than 6% of scientists are Republican.  Seems to me, that would be an extreme embarrassment.


----------



## Chris (Aug 22, 2009)

Modbert said:


> 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> 
> How unsurprising
> 
> ...



Republicans are bothered by things like "facts" and "science."


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> ...


no, thats you
but you are clearly projecting again


----------



## Chris (Aug 22, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> This is so funny I can't stop laughing.  I am not going to try to guess, but I have to believe the vast majority of scientists polled earn their living off of grants and public money.  Climate change, stem cell research, research for diseases, we can go on and on and on; many scientists get their funding through some type of grant, and guess which party is likely to dole out more money in grants, especially the ones on things like fruit fly research in France?
> 
> Now, I won't say all of that public spending is wasteful but come on, if your livelihood was dependent upon federal money, wouldn't you support the party that was most likely to keep you working?



No, you would support the party that is best for America.

Which is what they do.


----------



## rdean (Aug 22, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> This is so funny I can't stop laughing.  I am not going to try to guess, but I have to believe the vast majority of scientists polled earn their living off of grants and public money.  Climate change, stem cell research, research for diseases, we can go on and on and on; many scientists get their funding through some type of grant, and guess which party is likely to dole out more money in grants, especially the ones on things like fruit fly research in France?
> 
> Now, I won't say all of that public spending is wasteful but come on, if your livelihood was dependent upon federal money, wouldn't you support the party that was most likely to keep you working?



-----------I love this.  Here, the following is a different quote:

cientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine have shown that a protein called neurexin is required for..nerve cell connections to form and function correctly.

The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism. 

--------Wait, wait, wait.  This quote is even better:

While identifying this gene array is significant in its own right, the successful use of fruit flies in this kind of study is a revelation to the researchers who view it as an efficient model for the initial testing of "rescue" therapies to try to prevent birth defects. Scientists can study the effect of the drug on the genes of as many as three generations of fruit flies in a month using readily available scientific tools, speeding up study times while keeping costs low.

"It also adds to the growing list of roles fruit flies can take," says Walker. Fruit flies are already used as models for aging, neural disease and cancer.


---------Every time a Republican opens their mouth about "science", they have to talk around their foot.  It's why they are difficult to understand.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 23, 2009)

rdean said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Really?  Please demonstrate for us that "the religious" trash doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, rather than reserving our scorn specifically for theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science.


----------



## Chris (Aug 23, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > JohnStOnge said:
> ...



You just described the Republican Party.


----------



## rdean (Aug 25, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > JohnStOnge said:
> ...



Because the religious call doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, wait, how did you put it?  "Theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science."  From that "theoretical egghead nonsense" comes things such as "microwaves and TVs."

Leave it to people without a clue to judge.

ABS


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 25, 2009)

rdean said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



And nobody construes slavery as acceptable under our federal law.  

Times change, people change, interpretation of the Constitution changes.

Have troube with that concept (?), then move to Iran and let the mullahs decide things for you.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 26, 2009)

Well that serves reason...    And it explains how Science has become so politicized... and how such has suffered such gaps in credibility...  particularly with regards to climate "Science"... and the long discredited farce of 'anthropologic global warming.'


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



No, dumbass, clearly "the religious" differentiate between doctors, engineers, and inventors and theoretical eggheads staring at their belly buttons, since I just did so in my previous post.  It's actually not hard to tell the difference, since the first group actually accomplishes something real, and the second group has nothing to show for its efforts but a long list of hoaxes and the pithy debate technique of "Well, you're just stupid, so nyah nyah!"

I realize this whole "reading for comprehension" thing is tough for you, but could you do us the courtesy of at least TRYING?


----------



## rdean (Aug 26, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Doctors, engineers, and inventors are called "Democrats" or as 94% say, "Not Republicans".  Thank you, thank you, thank you for your continued "support" for our "Democratic" scientists.  

Where do we find "Republican Scientists"?  It has to be "damp".

Scientist is the third most respected profession in the United States.  The top two are "military and teacher".  Two areas scientists support with their weapons and knowledge.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Somehow, I remember you ducking and dodging the question of how we were defining "scientists" for this poll, rather than establishing that it covered all practicing doctors, engineers, and inventors, so I will thank you not to assume you can now pretend that that's a settled fact.  That only works on leftist droolers with five-minute memories.

Establish the facts, THEN declare them.  Any REAL scientist would know that.


----------



## rdean (Aug 27, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You wouldn't know a real scientist if he bit you on your evolved....


----------



## MasterMeerkat (Aug 28, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Texas's mandatory Bible Class
> * Texas_and_the_Bible_in_school (mastermeerkat:cant post links yet)*
> 
> .....
> ...


----------



## rdean (Aug 28, 2009)

MasterMeerkat said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Texas's mandatory Bible Class
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 29, 2009)

rdean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Well, he wouldn't be wandering around thinking that, "Only stupid people disbelieve in evolution" constitutes evidence that evolution is true.  On the whole, I think I can distinguish a real scientist from a pretentious Internet _poseur _pretty well.


----------



## rdean (Sep 2, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You don't even know what science is.  Hey, please explain to me the "scientific method".  Let me go get a bag of popcorn.  This is going to be very entertaining.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 5, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



And no candidate who would satisfy the modern day American right can be elected, period.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2009)

NYcarbineer said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



This is so true.  The American right has managed to box itself in as it did through early and mid sixties.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 5, 2009)

Science is just a massive parlor trick by God to keep faith from getting too easy.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 5, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



It's the 'purist' syndrome.  Kind of like a fly fisherman who scoffs at the guy with a zebco and a can of worms, even though he's the one catching the most fish.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 5, 2009)

Modbert said:


> 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> 
> How unsurprising
> 
> ...



Dear Brat,
As I &#8216;pen&#8217; this letter, I am filled with the sadness that attends the dissolution of a relationship of such long standing.
So sorry, but I have found a new object of comic relief. 

Biting my lower lip, I must confess that I have found one dumber, yea, even more immature, who has assumed the position from which I formerly believed you could not be shaken:  target of choice. Therefore, I must save my singular contumely for the nascent buffoon, and leave the erstwhile.

To reveal my new candidate for champion in the annals of simpleton-posters, the new homunculus, the very apogee of Acedia,  it is none other than rdean!

Yes, rdean: he effortlessly applies the kind of jejune cliché and puerile polemic for which I used to turn to you.
But, all bad things must come to an end.

Therefore I am no longer able to give you the attention that you so richly deserve- oh, wait&#8230;, I already give you the attention that you so richly deserve.

Adieu my little toad.


----------



## rdean (Sep 5, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> ...



Rather than spending valuable time showering unworthy me with unwanted attention, perhaps it would be time better spent learning something worthwhile that might even contribute to a sensible debate?
adieu


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 6, 2009)

rdean said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...




Brilliant, rdean, just brilliant!

This is the reason why there are all those little hearts circling my head.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 6, 2009)

I wonder if this means the other 94% don't have a clue as to what they're talking about?


----------



## amrchaos (Sep 6, 2009)

I wonder--how many of them were Libertarians??  I know a good number of those in mathematics

By the way--Medical Doctors are Scientists...


----------



## amrchaos (Sep 6, 2009)

editec said:


> I'd love to see a serious study done on IQ and political beliefs (not parties, beliefs)
> 
> Bet your ass that would cause more fireworks than the _BELL CURVE_ books did.
> 
> ...



I think this was done before.....There was a very, very marked distinction between self identifyinan conservatives and self-identifying Libertarians(yes, libertarians) that suggested Iq and social liberalism is highly correlated, and economic not so..


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 7, 2009)

Were the Creation Scientists included in the study?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2009)

I know a Ph.d. in biology who is a creation scientist.  She is also on a bunch of anti-psychotic meds.


----------



## rdean (Sep 11, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I wonder if this means the other 94% don't have a clue as to what they're talking about?



No, it means that 6% of scientists are so dedicated, so focused and so insulated they have no idea that the Republican party is the party of mysticism and the occult.  

Why would any reputable scientist knowingly be involved with a political party that is anti science?  It's like Cindy McCain joining a club dedicated to prohibition.


----------



## Zona (Sep 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > nevermind, i found it myself
> ...



Opinion or a link?


----------



## Meister (Sep 11, 2009)

Zona said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



There's a link...just google it.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 11, 2009)

I wouldn't trust any scientist that claims a party or alignment, period.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 11, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> I wouldn't trust any scientist that claims a party or alignment, period.


How about a scientist who does have a party affiliation but knows that there is no room for politics in doing science?


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 11, 2009)

Si modo said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't trust any scientist that claims a party or alignment, period.
> ...



Sorry, but science has shown that's not possible.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 11, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


Eh, what's an outlier anyway?  Phenomenal.


----------



## Zona (Sep 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



So thats no to a credible link?  Ok..so its opinion.  Got it.


----------



## Meister (Sep 11, 2009)

Zona said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


I don't think anything would be credible to you that would actually be a fact.  I'm just not in the mood for your tripe....you do your own homework.


----------



## rdean (Sep 11, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Just curious, there's politics in science?  I understand that there are those that push religious dogma as something real, but you can't blame that on scientists.

Bush Appointees Land Career Science Jobs With Seemingly Unrelated Backgrounds - washingtonpost.com


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2009)

Web definitions for outlier --  a person who lives away from his place of work 
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 11, 2009)

I suspect scientists who rely on government grants claim to be independents.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 11, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> I suspect scientists who rely on government grants claim to be independents.


Any granting agency doesn't give a damn about political affiliation in scientific proposals for fed grant monies.  It would be quite bizarre for any affiliation to be even mentioned in any proposal.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 11, 2009)

Si modo,
I don't know how to respond to your post.  I've written half a dozen proposals, all successful.  Three were funded by the USDOJ, two by the California Dept of Corrections (Fed. Revenue Sharing) and one by a private foundation.
To be successful one must follow all the directions and read the 'politics' between the lines of the RFP (Request for Proposals).  On one of my proposals, we were awarded the funds, but a couple of weeks later the Gov. of California sent his Chief of Staff to speak with me and our Chief.  The Gov. had 'concerns'.  Grants, much like everything in Sacramento or in The District are always political.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 11, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Si modo,
> I don't know how to respond to your post.  I've written half a dozen proposals, all successful.  Three were funded by the USDOJ, two by the California Dept of Corrections (Fed. Revenue Sharing) and one by a private foundation.
> To be successful one must follow all the directions and read the 'politics' between the lines of the RFP (Request for Proposals).  On one of my proposals, we were awarded the funds, but a couple of weeks later the Gov. of California sent his Chief of Staff to speak with me and our Chief.  The Gov. had 'concerns'.  Grants, much like everything in Sacramento or in The District are always political.


Maybe we are speaking two different languages.  I was talking about _scientific_ proposals - NIH, NSF, DOE, DoD, etc..  DoJ proposals, unless involving forensics or something simlar along that line, do not ring true as falling into the scientific proposal category to me.


----------



## jeffrockit (Sep 12, 2009)

Modbert said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not Mormon, and I am a Christian, although not a right wing fanatic.  I would support Romeny over Palin without question.  Palin would be my absolute last choice.
> ...



It is no higher a percentage than the far left. Both sides have an equal amount of fringe elements. It just seems that way for many who chose a side rather than what is right or wrong. Partisanship is a complete waste of time and energy but makes the politicians very happy. Again, a divided America keeps us fighting each other rather than the political corruption. I would much rather join forces and clean up Washington but I guess I am in the minority on this board. We were once Americans first and I wish we could return to that.


----------



## Zona (Sep 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Ah, the old...you look it up....thing.  Funny stuff.

Usually they just say, go to google and look it up yourself when trying to prove a point that cant be proved.

Got ya.


----------



## Meister (Sep 12, 2009)

Zona said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



That's what "they" say, huh?  Got ya....you lazy ass.


----------



## Zona (Sep 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



So to recap, you cant prove it.  Got ya.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 12, 2009)

Zona said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Let me get this straight, when someone else makes a claim you demand links or call them a liar, when you make a claim and they ask for links you call them a liar. Hmm ... not a good attitude.


----------



## Zona (Sep 12, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



for someone with over 19k posts, you are clueless.  Seriously. Cant you even follow this one?  

19k posts in a year?  Wow.  clueless with a lot of time on your hands it seems.


----------



## Meister (Sep 12, 2009)

Zona said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Zona, you are the clueless one.  Not only clueless, but a blooming idiot.  

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Obama losing independent voters « - Blogs from CNN.com
Tel-Chai Nation: Independents are leaving Obama
RealClearPolitics - Video - CNN Poll: 53% Of Independents Disapprove Of Obama
Poll Disaster For Obama
Major Factor In Obama's WaPo Poll Slide: Drop Among Dems, Liberals | 44 | washingtonpost.com
Poll: Democrats' Hard Left Agenda Is Driving Away Independents - Peter Roff (usnews.com)

*I expect an apology to KK for your idiotic post about her*.  You can't really be this stupid...but, I'm guessing you really are.


----------



## Chris (Sep 12, 2009)

Zona said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Shhh...

Be nice to the old shut in.


----------



## Digibomber (Sep 17, 2009)

Robert said:


> 6% of Scientists are Republicans.
> 
> How unsurprising



And how many Priests are Republicans?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> I suspect scientists who rely on government grants claim to be independents.



I suspect that you are totally ignorant of grant procedures.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Kitten, that is one hypocritical statement coming from you. How many links to sources have you provided me? And how many have I provided you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2009)

Meister said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...




President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve53.1Disapprove42.3Spread +10.8

Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve28.8Disapprove62.0Spread -33.2

Direction of Country
RCP Average
Right Direction35.4Wrong Track58.8Spread -23.4

Generic Congressional Vote
RCP Average
Democrats44.0Republicans39.8Democrats +4.2

A Different Take On Burr In*NC - Real Clear Politics &#8211; TIME.com


----------



## Meister (Sep 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Seeing how you stuck your nose into something that you obviously knew nothing about.  We were talking about the Independents Old Rocks....all of your source says nothing about that.  I bolded some key elements to your post. Nice try...care to try again?


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



For me to be the hypocrite here I would have to actually ask you for links beyond when you quote copyrighted sources ... find one post where I have done that. I never "demand" links from anyone unless they quote a source.


----------

