Why do conservatives hate science so much?

Sara - posted on 01/13/2011 ( 49 moms have responded )

9,313

50

“Why DO conservatives hate science so much?” Or “How I learned not to learn and trust my beer gut instead.”
By Justin “filthy liberal scum” Rosario

Once upon a time, America was THE smartest nation on the planet. We were the most advanced. We invented almost EVERYTHING and the stuff we didn’t invent ourselves, we improved on. We were at the cutting edge of science. Or, as Michael “I look like a Muppet” Steele might say, beyond cutting-edge! We invented the internet (and if you still think Al Gore claimed he did, you are a dumbstupid[i]). We put a man on the moon to play freaking golf. GOLF! How awesome were we?!

Now? We’re that cranky old man down the street who can never remember your name even though you’ve mowed his lawn for five years. We still use a rotary phone and drive a Model T compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

You think we’re still the smartest people on the planet?

We don’t even have the potential to be the smartest anymore.

We have literally lobotomized ourselves.

And to what do we owe this gift of dumb? Right Wing fundamentalism, both religious and political. No one has taken this quote from Benjamin Franklin as seriously as the powers that be in the conservative movement:

“A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”

They’ve taken it seriously all right; as a serious threat to their agenda. A well informed populace is hard to lie to. A well informed population is hard to manipulate with propaganda. A well informed population is hard to convince that economic suicide is a viable platform.

The Right has spent decades slowly eroding the foundations of intellectual America. Where once teachers were respected and scientists idolized, now they are pariahs. Teachers’ Unions are the cause of our failing schools! Educated people are elitists! Intellectuals are Socialists! Scientists are all lying to you about the environment! Except for this small handful of scientists and intellectuals that inexplicably agree with everything we paid them to say, you can trust them.

The first test of real science versus conservative science was cigarettes. Big Tobacco spent billions to confuse the issue and convince people that cigarettes were safe. It didn’t matter that every properly run study found exactly the same thing: cigarettes are physically addictive and cause cancer (in addition to a host of other ill side effects). Big Tobacco found a willing ally in conservative politicians (shocking, I know); Congressmen who stood in front of cameras and told the country that the damning science was “junk science” and the attacks on Big Tobacco were politically motivated. I would say they lied but I honestly believe they didn’t know the truth and, much more importantly, didn’t WANT to know. Big business had come for help fighting regulation and that’s all they needed to know. That, and how much in donations they could expect for their re-election fund.

And it worked. For decades. Even as the public’s awareness that smoking seemed to be killing their loved ones grew, Congress, carrying water for Big Tobacco, did nothing. Finally, enough incontrovertible evidence surfaced, much of it “borrowed” from Big Tobacco itself, that cigarettes were finally seen for what they really are: a product that will, in all probability, kill you. A dangerous product intentionally pushed onto an unsuspecting public by uncaring corporations. This should have forever put to rest any question as to whether Big Business (and by default, their champions, professional conservatives) has the public’s welfare in mind at all. (ou :sı ɹǝʍsuɐ ǝɥʇ)

But it didn’t.

Environmentalists have been shrieking for years that pollution is damaging the planet. They were labeled “tree hugging hippies”. There have been warnings for decades about overfishing. “Alarmists.” Disastrous climate change. “Al Gore, the serial exaggerator.” That the Ozone layer was eroding. OK, that one had real graphic pictures and was impossible to argue against without looking like an imbecile so they took unusually substantial steps. But the list goes on forever. All opposed by conservatives claiming “junk science”. And what did it get us?

Acid rain, dangerously depleted fish stock, melting ice caps and rising sea levels and a giant hole in the Ozone layer that will take centuries to reseal. “Junk science” indeed.

How does religion fit into this scam? Easily. Fundamentalism works best when no one questions the authority and authenticity of scripture. “You will obey MY interpretation of God’s word or else!” Science, by its very nature, questions and is, therefore, the enemy.

Mind you, we’re not discussing Ultimate Truth here. We’re talking about the observable workings of the universe and the history of the Earth. Fundamentalism insists that the Earth is only 6000 years old, Noah’s Flood was a historical event and evolution is a liberal lie.

When presented with the choice of believing utter nonsense and being forced to question the very underpinnings of their faith, all too many reject the real and embrace the fantasy. Fundamentalist leaders count on this. Once you can convince someone of your absolute infallibility, you can tell them to do anything,believe anything and they will because any other course would shred the very fabric of their life.

Many (most) worshippers reject this fallacy and set religion apart from science. The Fat Smug Bastard is one of them and while our conversations about whether or not God exists can be, at times, vicious energetic, we both agree that science is the final authority on pretty much all matters not having to do with the spiritual.

Even the Vatican, a long time proponent of “Shut the hell up, the Earth is the center of the universe!” looks at the United States and wonders how we became so stupid. How embarrassing is THAT?

Right Wing politics and Fundamentalist religion made a devil’s bargain a long time ago. They would both work to undermine science, thereby rendering the population ever so more open to manipulation and control. This paves the way for unregulated industry (read as: unlimited profit) and for the mixing of temporal power with spiritual (read as: theocracy). Economic conservatism and social conservatism. The two banes of modern America’s existence.

This is great news for the rest of world. As we become dumber and dumber and more technologically unsophisticated, we are unintentionally seceding the role of world leader to whoever can claim it first. Someone else will make it to Mars first. Someone else will invent the new, virus free, internet. Someone else will create the first quantum computer. Someone else will perfect nanotechnology. We’ll just be their customers. We’ll have terrible credit and won’t understand the instruction manual.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms

49 Comments

View replies by

Meagan - posted on 06/12/2011

178

10

I dont know if I agree with this. It seems to put an emphasis on religion as the reason science is dismissed, and blames right-wing conservatives for being that way. I am not conservative nor liberal, right nor left wing, so I can see this from a slightly objective view. Ok, objective as in I hate both sides equally. lol Anyway, I do not think that religion is to blame for what we do and do not do. Politicians line their pockets with money from the highest bidder. They didn't say scientists lie about smoking because God told them to enjoy a smoke. Instead, they said "hey. Scientists aren't paying us, but these tobacco people are giving us LOADS of money." It goes back to each individual politicians morality. Right or left, conservative or liberal, they all have the potential to be morally corrupt and choose what is best for their wallets over what is best for the people, enviornment, etc. On the other side, there are politicians who fight for what they DO truly believe in, whether it's popular with the masses or coincides with their religious foundation. Do I think those people are worthy of being politicians? Nope. However, I do have to commend them for sticking up for what they believe in, as wrong as I may think it is.

I hate when one side says the other side is completely evil. BOTH sides have their faults, and both have their benefits. I think instead of blaming one side over the other, we need to, as a nation, step back and realize that what we have now is not working. As great as some politicians are, there are plenty more who aren't, and unfortunately, I believe it's time for a complete overhaul on our government. Is that a feasible idea? Probably not, but I think it is what would be for the best. Starting over fresh.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - John Dalberg-Acton

That quote holds great truth to me. No matter how many times we tear down and rebuild a democratic system, eventually, corruption will happen. To blame religion for corruption is a cop out and an attempt to demonize one view and sway people to another view. Not all politicians are religious, not all aren't. Not all base their politics off their morals, not all don't. What I do know is that on both sides there are people more concerned about THEIR growth, over the growth of the people and of the nation.

Unfortunately, a lot of times this falls into the science and education aspect. Our education system is flawed. Science is flawed. This could be attributed to the fact that eventually every great nation falls. Maybe this stupor we are in is a part of the start of our fall. Maybe we are at the crossroads where either we fight that fate and survive, or fall into oblivion with other nations. I dont know, but we will find out.

Pamela - posted on 05/04/2011

1,496

104

My husband and I watched that film as well - it was terribly dishonest not to mention something of a bait and switch (or at least it felt that way to us). It mixed ID with conservative politics somehow making assumptions that I found one-sided. I am not a complete fan of Mr. Dawkins though I respect his science (I think he can be a bit of an ass - though he is brilliant. My son just informed that everyone in the universe can be a bit of an ass which I suppose is true so I'll just stop there). They really did him wrong in this film - I think I saw that full uncut interview on YouTube and it's pretty shocking. I have very little respect for Ben Stein.

Listen, be conservative if you really feel that way. But please, back it up with some facts. Not this made up shit these filmmakers put on screen and try to pass as facts.

Jen - posted on 05/04/2011

2,551

1

Oh I'm sorry but I can't talk to you about that film because it is so incredibly dishonest. Specifically the interview with Richard Dawkins. It's edited to make him sound like he's saying one thing when he is in fact saying something else. Do a look on youtube on Richard Dawkins channel directly and you'll see the full un-cut footage.

It's editing in that film like that (making a renowed biologist sound like he's saying something he did NOT say) that makes me view the entire film's premise with a jaundiced eye.

Janessa - posted on 05/03/2011

444

38

Jen actually I read about Inteligent design and I have watched a movie about it. Maybe people are confusing it with creation. I think the movie started Ben stein he talked to scienctist in Europe and all over America. How many of them lost there jobs because there do not believe in the Dawrin theory. Because science is founded by wealthy people and if your idea is not base on theres then they will not support you. I think everyone should watch the movie it really opened my eyes.

Jen - posted on 04/29/2011

2,551

1

Janessa, when the people considered top in the Intelligent Design movement testified in Dover PA, it became incredibly clear that the designer they chose is the Christian god. I would highly recommend you do a litle reading on the Dover trial. Even if you still consider Intelligent Design to be valid, you will learn a lot about the people promoting it and their motivations.

Janessa - posted on 04/29/2011

444

38

"Intelligent Design " Has nothing to do with creation at all. It has to do with maybe something else is responsible for our creation that goes beyond what we were taught.Maybe aliens were responsible for ur creation we do not know 100% its about thinking outside the box instead of believing what we were taught.

Pamela - posted on 04/29/2011

1,496

104

These companies have enormous power and wealth and are not afraid to use those two things to silence any dissenters.

Jen - posted on 04/29/2011

2,551

1

@Jennifer. The media, doctors and private citizens are making noise about the issues with coal mining and hydrofracking. Fracking is an issue in my local area however anytime an article, editorial or letter to the editor appears, it is followed by a firestorm of letters accusing them of being left-wing liberal environmentalist whackos who just want to stop them from getting cheaper energy. They are not taken seriously and the companies have a lot of money to spend on promoting their services. Plus it's a real visceral issue because (in the case of fracking) people need cheaper energy. I know I'd love to see my natural gas bill go down but not at the cost of being able to light my drinking water on fire.

And who knows, it may not even be the fracking but since the gas company bought enough politicians to be excluded from any epa. Now they can honestly pump any chemical in the ground to get at the natural gas (including BENZENE) and they're not required to tell anyone including a government agency what they're using. That's corporate abuse of power and if it isn't, I'm sure I don't know what is.

Johnny - posted on 04/28/2011

8,686

26

If Exxon & BP had been held responsible for their negligence, they would have had to pay each and every penny of the clean-up, economic fall-out, and compensation that was caused. If government was smaller and not involved so intrinsically in our lives through regulation, those companies would have either had to chose to take that responsibility upon themselves or they would have just walked away from the problem without a second thought. Which path do you really think that they would take if given the choice?

Isobel - posted on 04/28/2011

9,849

0

and how were they "held responsible"? they paid itty bitty fines that were no where close to the damage that they caused and they are still turning a massive profit.

Your idea of businesses being held accountable for their actions is a beautiful THEORY...it IS how the invisible hand of the free market in a capitalist society is SUPPOSED to work...

but this isn't a true free market system. The corporations are in control of the American government...in fact, if you look at how many massive companies have conglomerated we are moving closer and closer to a system where we all have only ONE choice of who to buy from and who to work for

...hmmmmmmm sounds a little off from what the founders of America intended, no?

Krista - posted on 04/28/2011

12,562

16

Were Exxon and BP put out of business though?

People have VERY short memories. It's a lovely thought to believe that people will take their business elsewhere if a company screws over the environment.

But it's not true.

There are sadly, all too many people who don't give a flying fig about the environment, and who don't give a damn what is done to our planet, as long as their gas prices don't go up.

So regulations ARE necessary, because some things cannot afford to be ignored by an easily distracted public.

Jennifer - posted on 04/28/2011

317

11

Exxon and BP have been held responsible for those oil spills so I don't think that is good example of big business run amok. I don't live in coal country so I don't know about those issues, but if it's true that the coal industry is making those areas unihabitable why isn't the media, doctors, public people exposing what is happening? That's the media's job in a free society, to tell us what is going on so public pressure can influence what is happening. Coal is a difficult issue though, I would rather not dig up the mountains, but we need the coal.

Pamela - posted on 04/26/2011

1,496

104

I think what you're saying on one level is true Jennifer though perhaps on smaller scale. What I mean is, if I own a Mom & Pop restaurant, keeping good standards and serving good food, well then my business will thrive. If I fail in those things, then it is likely that it will go out of business (and rightfully so). Or if I own a larger but more local business, people can choose to give me business or not based on my practices (are they ethical, responsible to the people in that community and to the environment?)



But multinational corporations function a bit differently than that. Many of these corporations have unbelievable influence in Washington (via lobbyists) and untold amounts of wealth to buy off politicians (who need tons of money to run their campaigns be they Republicans or Democrats). Regulatory laws have been greatly weakened over the past 30 years - and many corporations are getting away with terrible devastation to both the environment and to the people within a region - i.e. BP's oil spill or ExxonMobile's Valdez are excellent examples.



Mountain topping in West Virginia and throughout the Appalachians is creating Mordor in one of the most beautiful regions in this country - and it isn't just the pretty trees or proud mountains that are being affected. It's the people who live there. They deal with contaminated water, poisoned creek beds, intimidation from the coal company (Massey to be exact) when they want to buy up your ancestral land...slurry pits created directly above schools.



God only knows what will happen with fracking...Apparently people can light their water on fire. Some pretty nasty chemicals are used in the process of fracking and so this affects people's health. But all of this also affects the local economies - the homes where fracking is done lose their value. That $150,000 home one homeowner bought a few years back? It's worth $29,000 now.



The companies (say like Chesapeak in Pennsylvania) deny any liability. If people get sick, well, the community medical clinics and hospitals are given big donations by the gas company and often fail to acknowledge the potential chemical poisoning people may actually be experiencing.



To some degree, we all are guilty I guess. I use electricity - I'm not off the grid (though I'd love to be - but it's costly). I heat my house with natural gas and for all I know, it might come from an area where fracking is used to get it up out of the ground. There aren't real easy answers - though frankly it's time for our country to stop dicking around with fossil fuels and look more into renewables. We want jobs? We could manufacture renewables and create well paying good jobs! It's possible and it's doable - and companies like Koch Industries are doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't happen. Why? Because they make their money in 20th century fossil fuel production and they will squeeze every drop and dime out of it regardless of consequences.

Krista - posted on 04/26/2011

12,562

16

Not only is that bad for their soul but they will find themselves out of business as soon as people find out what they are doing.



That's right.



Goodness knows that ExxonMobil isn't doing business anymore.



Nor is BP.



Besides, it's not like there are any towns where some businesses have monopolies, right? Consumers ALWAYS have the choice to bring their business elsewhere -- even if "elsewhere" is 200 miles down the road and the consumer in question has no car.



All hail the invisible hand of the free market!

Jennifer - posted on 04/26/2011

317

11

I never said there is no place for regulation, it's just that sometimes it gets out of control and because an unreasonable burden on people trying to run a business. I just want to have balance. I am well aware that there are evil people who will risk anything to make a quick buck. Not only is that bad for their soul but they will find themselves out of business as soon as people find out what they are doing. It is in everyone's best interest for business to operate safely and responsibly.

Krista - posted on 04/26/2011

12,562

16

I appreciate the pragmatic support of allowing a company in because then the company will have to be accoutable to US and local laws.

And that's all that regulation really IS -- it's not meant to stifle competition or to give businesses a hard time. It's simply meant to ensure that businesses are operating safely and that they are offering a safe product to their consumers. It would be lovely if we COULD depend on businesses to self-regulate. However, we've seen too many cases of unethical businesses putting profits before safety. I guess when I hear people railing against regulation, I start thinking, "So you want us to be the kind of place where we only find out several months after the fact that we have melamine in our milk?"

Jennifer - posted on 04/26/2011

317

11

Yes, responsible use of our resources is what we should all be doing. I want clean air, water, and nature in the raw (as much as that is possible) for my kids and their kids to enjoy. I appreciate the pragmatic support of allowing a company in because then the company will have to be accoutable to US and local laws. In China it's a true mess.

Pamela - posted on 04/22/2011

1,496

104

Here in Minnesota, they are talking about starting up a company called Polymet - some kind of mining company. Environmental groups are rather up in arms about it and oppose it. Dave (my husband) talked with an environmental scientist recently though who made some very interesting points about why it is a good idea to allow the company on our range. First, if they mine in China, there are absolutely no regulatory laws in place - and what will go into the water will be raw and very very nasty. And whether its done in China or wherever, it affects all of us. If the company does their thing here in Minnesota, well, we have some very stringent and excellent laws that will not permit them to dump the raw waste into our water. They will have to make sure to cleanse as much as possible. But this company will provide good jobs in a very depressed area of our state. I say we do it.

So that all said, rather than lowering our standards to the level of say, China, what if companies raised the standard of China and everybody else to our level? Even out the playing field - but not in a negative way that allows the total destruction of our environment? Responsible land use should be rewarded, not punished - which is what Jennifer is perhaps saying. I don't actually disagree with that.

Jen - posted on 04/22/2011

2,551

1

Going back to the idea of using the world's resources. I tend to agree but at what cost? Let's look at the debate on hydrofracking. My relatives in PA have massive concerns over the levels of benzene(sp) right now. Conservatives here in NY keep pushing the hydrofracking for natural gas and those who oppose are just apparently lily-livered environmentalist wackos. Well, maybe but maybe not. I would think it's a good thing to know what chemicals are being used to get to that natural gas because I would love to see it work and decrease my heat bill. Unfortunately I can't know what those chemicals are thanks to Cheney's deal with the natural gas folks who have been excluded from EPA requirements and dont' have to tell me what they're sticking in the ground near the water table. They could be using ANYTHING and no one has the right to know or even find out if it's safe. That's wrong. There are now parts of NY where you can set your tap water on fire and oddly enough, there was hydrofracking right near there. Now some conservatives here are saying that this is due to naturally occuring chemicals in the water yet it only became flammable AFTER the fracking started.

So yes, drill and all that but don't be stupid about it. Don't do it to the point of destroying everything else. That's not utilizing our natural resources. that's greed.

Jen - posted on 04/22/2011

2,551

1

Thanks for clarifying the gender thing. I understand your point much better now. :-)

Pamela - posted on 04/22/2011

1,496

104

Another awesome organization to look into is Bioneers. I think they hail out of San Diego but they have conferences every year and highlight the work of different scientists - these are scientists who are actively in the field and know what's going on. Awesome stuff!

Pamela - posted on 04/22/2011

1,496

104

Another scientist who works in marine biology is Carl Safrina. Check him out - he has a blog as well and offers a thoughtful voice.

Pamela - posted on 04/22/2011

1,496

104

I don't know if I can watch that Mary. I'll probably have to run quivering into a corner sucking my thumb...



Jen, I actually do not promote matriarchy over patriarchy. I'm not sure it would be better - any system that prefers one gender over another is ripe for oppression.



I do prefer the vision of an egalitarian society. My point regarding patriarchy is only this: the earth is regarded as feminine. Within patriarchal societies, the feminine is consistently degraded, dehumanized, and marginalized. It is, more or less, acceptable to treat the feminine anyway one desires - and usually it is treated as a commodity to be owned and used in whatever way men see fit.



Hence, it makes sense (to me anyway) that men rape women (obviously not all men) and we all rape the earth. While there are laws saying "not okay", people still frequently blame the victim ("she got what she deserved!"). Kind of like they did in that Texas town when the 11-year-old child was raped by 18 men because her mother allowed her to "dress like a slut".



The earth too is brutally raped everyday - and on many levels, we all benefit from it. We are all a part of this - men and women. It's a spirit, an atmosphere, a world view that says "it's okay, there's more, it's ours, it's our right". It's obviously not exactly the same thing but there are correlations.



Jennifer, your statement regarding different world views - how many times have I heard that? Your presupposition is that your world view is the only correct world view. Therefore your are correct while the rest of us are dreadfully incorrect. My encouragement to you is develop your teachability skills. I challenge you to read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". Or to investigate (not with the help of Cato or Heritage either - or by any other pundit FOX News puts up) the real effects of global warming.



Read about Bechtel water rights in Bolivia and how the World Bank would not renew its USD loan to that country unless it privatized the water system. Read about how that corporation raised the price of water so high people could not afford water - a substance we all need to live. Get your information from somewhere other than the conservative sources you adhere to so desperately.



Because they don't have the market on truth. And they are wrong on so many fronts. It isn't about world view. It is about Mammon, greed, and a cynical disregard for human life.

ME - posted on 04/22/2011

2,978

18

Speaking to the difference between government oversight and free market (global) capitalism...I've just been watching Blue Gold...holy terrifying shit batman! Water Resources owned by just a few major companies...will probably begin to run out around 2050, and then be SOLD back to us at alarmingly high rates...I'd like to know how even the most Randian among us could allow for the OWNERSHIP of the EARTH'S water???!!!???

ME - posted on 04/22/2011

2,978

18

Thank you for the list of environmental researchers Pamela...I will have to check them out...Have you read Vandana Shiva...She shares your view about patriarchy and the environment...

Jen - posted on 04/22/2011

2,551

1

Jennifer, I listen to the conservative talk radio every day as it happens to coincide with my commute. Our local pundit really REALLY hates anything that smacks of an environmentalist and yet he never put that idea out there. Where did you get this? Why no responsibility on the part of the company's employees that did not do their job properly? To suggest that the spill made any environmentalist happy is insulting. ABout as insulting as I would assume it would be if I suggested that Christians were happy about the attack on 9/11 because it meant that the 2nd coming was at hand.

Jen - posted on 04/22/2011

2,551

1

I don't know about that Pamela. We haven't had a working matriarchal society of any large scale to study and determine if we would screw the world up any worse than the menfolk. My personal theory is similar but puts responsibility on all. We're animals that still run on a need for dominance. We as a species still haven't figured out how to stop eating when we're full. ;-)

Krista - posted on 04/21/2011

12,562

16

I don't believe it's blasphemy to use the resources we have in and on the earth.

To use them, no.

To use them in a completely unsustainable fashion, to the point where those resources will likely not be available for our grandchildren?

That's a slightly different picture, no?

Pamela - posted on 04/21/2011

1,496

104

By Calvin I mean John. Reformer from the 15-1600's. You can also read from the earlier Church fathers - guys like Iranieus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement, Justin Martyr, Polycarp - all of whom held in high regard the creation of God. Kind of hard to point to the glory of God if we've turned it into Mordor, dontchathink?

But here's my working theory. This environmental destruction has much to do with patriarchy (just gotta open that can of worms, don't I?) Systems of patriarchy have little to no problem raping women or the earth.

Jennifer - posted on 04/21/2011

317

11

I guess it's just the fundamental different world view. I don't believe it's blasphemy to use the resources we have in and on the earth. Nor do I see business funding research as automatically a conflict. And you can thank environmentalist for the gulf oil spill - it was their political pressure that moved the rig to deep water when it was known fact the technology to handle a deep water incident was in in place - but they got what they wanted - bad press for the oil company.

Pamela - posted on 04/21/2011

1,496

104

And Al Gore's book is not false. My husband and I swim in the environmental world (he more than myself). He did overstate a few things but he got most of it absolutely correct - whether it fits in with your world view or not. Science is science. It's imperfect but so is our understanding of the universe. Frankly, you need to familiarize yourself with Lester Brown, Will Steger, Amory Lovins and the other scientists on the ground and out in the field. These are the folks who study this stuff in the field and understand the implications of environmental degradation and global warming far more readily than anyone at the Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation (both In their 1996 book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado describe a shift in Cato's patron base over the years. "Early on," they wrote, "Cato's bills were largely paid by the Koch family of Wichita, Kansas. Today, most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation." Though diversified, Koch Industries amassed most of its fortune in oil trading and refining. Conflict of interest perhaps? Faulty science from policy writers who receive their funding from the petroleum industries?) if you're a Christ follower, read some Wendall Berry, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, Calvin DeWitt - even throw in some Calvin (who considered it a blasphemy to degrade and destroy the creation. Why? Because, the Psalmist tells us, the earth is the LORD's and all that is in it.) Then come back and we'll have a conversation.

Krista - posted on 04/21/2011

12,562

16

I've never understood that either, Sara. No, government isn't always the most competent, but at least they're a heck of a lot more media scrutiny, and are much more accountable for their actions, than corporations are.

And yet, conservatives keep insisting that these corporations will self-regulate just beautifully, because it's in their best interests to do so, because if they put out an unsafe product, consumers will go elsewhere.

To which I say, "Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!! Excuse me, but I have a bunch of oil soaked Gulf coast waterfowl on the line who'd like to have a word with you."

Sara - posted on 04/21/2011

9,313

50

I will never understand why conservatives champion big business/corporations rights over the rights of the individual, yet view the federal gov't as the root of all evil. Corporations make a profit, whether it's good for you and me or not, and better yet, they don't care if it's good for you or not...the housing market crash comes to mind.



As for the claim that embryonic stem cell research hasn't yielded anything significant as compared to adult stem cells...you're right to a point, but your statement is misleading. While adult stem cells have been studied for decades, human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998. There has not yet been time to develop new therapies using embryonic stem cells. And you could bypass the whole ethical debate around embryonic stem cells by using some of the hundreds of thousands unused embryos in fertility clinics that would just sit there and waste away, never given the chance to go to full term. Or is that an ethical issue for you as well?

Krista - posted on 04/21/2011

12,562

16

We only like environmental regulations that are sensible and still allow businesses to be successful.

Oh, horseshit. The Bush White House put pressure on the EPA to bury a report cautioning people about air quality in NYC after 9/11.

They did a survey in 2008 of EPA staff scientists, who all said that they had experienced increased political interference in their work in the previous 5 years.

Republicans are trying to roll back CHILD LABOR laws, for crissakes. You think that they're at all concerned with the environment, if it interferes at all with their precious free market?

Jennifer - posted on 04/21/2011

317

11

Yes, we think God created the world, he also created science. That doesn't mean science is any different for conservatives, it just means that when we wonder at science we say God is amazing!

Fetal stem cell research has gone nowhere, while adult stem cells are used successfully to treat many illnesses. Fetal stem cell research is a couple steps to close to turning babies into spare parts for me to believe it is at all ethical.
We only like environmental regulations that are sensible and still allow businesses to be successful.
I think you are right about some political adversaries of Obama not liking his wife and responding negatively to her childhood obesity efforts out of political, rather than sensible thoughts. But it's not like that doesn't go both ways.
Which reports got altered and by whom? I don't think you can lay that on all conservatives. Al Gore's book has been shown to be a big lie, but I don't blame all environmentalists for it.

Krista - posted on 04/21/2011

12,562

16

Pleases provide specific examples of how right wing politics work to undermine science.

Well, this is just off the top of my head...

-- They promote teaching of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design in science classes.
-- They are against federally-funded stem cell research.
-- They are against environmental regulations.
-- The Bush White House regularly appointed political idealogues to scientific positions. For example, "in 2002 the administration appointed the Kentucky gynecologist and obstetrician W. David Hager to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration. Hager has advocated treating premenstrual syndrome with Bible readings and has denounced the birth control pill. "
-- They denounce Michelle Obama's outreach efforts regarding childhood obesity, simply because she is Michelle Obama.
-- They de-funded the EPA, and altered reports that linked climate change to fossil fuel emissions.

Shall I go on?

Jennifer - posted on 04/11/2011

317

11

Why does the Vatican think we are so stupid? A lot of opinions in this editorial, but no supporting facts.

Jennifer - posted on 04/11/2011

317

11

Actually what we understand from Martin Luther is that we shouldn't logic ourselves out of a relationship with God, not that reason has no place in the world. It is a declaration from a man who was so passionate about God that his faith, by some standards, defied all reason, and he embraced that fully. Always since science has become so popular some people have claimed that with science there is no need for God, he was just saying reason should never replace God.

Jennifer - posted on 04/10/2011

317

11

Pleases provide specific examples of how right wing politics work to undermine science.

Jen - posted on 04/04/2011

2,551

1

That's an aspect I hadn't considered Pamela but you are completely correct.

Pamela - posted on 04/04/2011

1,496

104

Exactly, Jen.

Can you say "cannon fodder"? Because that is what Empire wants. Cannon fodder. I'm a bit off the subject, but If you're uneducated and stuck in poverty, the military can appear to be a way out of that poverty for you and your family.

Sadly religion plays a huge role in empire. Because of the authoritarian bent that so many are raised up in within the confines of religion, it is incredibly easy for them to be manipulated.

Jen - posted on 04/04/2011

2,551

1

An educated society is not as easily controlled/led.

Ava - posted on 03/24/2011

307

31

As Martin Luther once said, "Reason is the enemy of faith". That's why they're opposed. Because to be religious you must abandon logic.

Pamela - posted on 02/25/2011

1,496

104

I wonder if some of the reason for the thought that few women were educated during colonial times stems from the fact that they probably did not have much by way of a formal education - men would have been more formally educated than women. Which doesn't mean women weren't educated. Interestingly, if we only look at the lives of those in the public sphere of early American life, women will of course be poorly represented. Few women inhabited the public spheres.

One of my favorite books is "The People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. Zinn relates history in terms of the marginalized...a worthy endeavor.

JL - posted on 02/25/2011

3,635

48

New theories and ideas are always abounding in every area of study. I'm historian and we have a variety of schools of thought...there are traditionalists, modernists, post-modernists, revisionists and so on. As we go things change what was once a traditional theory accepted by all becomes a starting base for new historians who take a second and third look on what we all once agreed to be the fact. I have myself broke out of traditionalist theories to say wait that maybe not be correct lets look at it another way.

For example I have disagreed with many historians on literacy rates among women and men during colonial times. Historical Linguists once based the level of literacy simply on studying public and legal documents. The theory had always been that men were the ones on average who could read and write during colonial times but if you take a look at the female diaries that have been found and the level of their understanding of the bible and poetry it begs to question that perhaps maybe women had had higher literacy rate that we have assumed. Historians for centuries were narrowed by the idea that the use of signed public documents was the best way to measure who could read and write. Yet they ignored the fact that women were taught to read the bible but were by law not allowed to have ownership of property and such therefore they could not legally sign public documentation....does that mean they couldn't read or write in the numbers men could or does that mean we just don't have as many signed public documents because of social ideology to get a correct census.

Look at the nature of the American Revolution. Historians once asserted that the revolutionaries our founding fathers and such from the beginning wanted to break away from the crown. Yet as time passed and historians studied the words and writings closely it showed that at first many just wanted rights for the colonies but wanted to stay connected with the crown it wasn't until the crown continually refused colonial rights in parliament that they decided to shout their needs to become a separate entity.

We learn as we go and we adjust and we rethink that is the nature of things. Just ask why is there an old testament and a new.............

Pamela - posted on 02/24/2011

1,496

104

Here's an interesting thought: science changes, doesn't it? Or more accurately, our understanding of science changes. It isn't set in stone. What we understood 100 years ago, we understand now as faulty - and 100 years from now, things will look quite different.

But the same is true of scripture. Our understanding of scripture changes and grows, as we come across new manuscripts that perhaps take us closer to the originals or new understandings of the Hebrew and Greek words come to light.

This is why we have to hold onto these things so lightly. If we try to solidify them, they only become stale and useless to us.

JL - posted on 02/24/2011

3,635

48

I've often wondered if it's because some of the names scientists give dinosaurs are just way to difficult for some people to pronounce and spell. I mean have you ever tried saying and spelling....Bruhathkayosaurus. That's a mouth full.

I don't get it. Date wise it makes complete sense why a conservatives religious ideology would not perfectly coexist with scientific findings. Science came after Jesus..Ok yes we get this so as we intellectually grew we began to understand how the world works but instead of combining those discoveries and reestablishing their understanding of things to adjust to the intellectual gift of scientific discovery people have denied it, attacked it or try to create stories where the Flintstones become a reality...(creationism museum). That to me is ridiculous. It's like me sticking to how I mentally understood things as a child and refusing to acknowledge the breadth of knowledge and understanding I developed as an adult, refusing to reshape my take on things. Why refuse it why not accept what is proven. Coexist...it's not that difficult of a concept unless you choose to make it so.

Pamela - posted on 01/31/2011

1,496

104

I've had a little time to think about this...



One reason conservatives (not all of them, mind you) hate science is because science often goes against what they "know" is true. A phenomenon I've noticed over the past decade is the creation of 2 fact universes. You have the real scientists - men and women who are actual scientists - and then you have individuals who are not scientists at all but often have quite an agenda - be it religious or political. Ken Ham is a good example of this. He's behind the "Answers In Genesis" - he isn't a scientist, though he does have a Bachelor's Degree in Applied Science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) and an honorary PhD in Literature from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. He also holds a Diploma of Education from the University of Queensland.



This guy is hugely influential in the Christian homeschooling circles. He's also hugely wrong from a science perspective (but good luck convincing anyone). One needs only look at his basic theology (very fundamentalist).



This means a couple of things: he believes that Young Earth Creationism should be taught in schools (he has modified that to Intelligent Design - which by the way in it's original conception did not buy into the idea of a young earth). He also holds that women should be submissive to their husbands (and we're talking obedience - what the hubby says, goes). Evolution is a lie (according to Ham and others like him) and should be expunged from our schools and universities.



There is fundamentally at the core of their teaching an agenda that is authoritarian and very restrictive. Many of these men (and make no mistake, the vast majority of these voices are male) want something that is more of a theocracy. I really believe they want women in "their place". Much of their theology centers on the proper role of women. It's a big, big deal in their fundamentalist world.



Corporations - which at their core are very conservative (if not downright fascist in some cases) have quite effectively used these two fact universes to further their own agendas. When one group is "leftist, socialist - with the goal of destroying America" and the other group represents "Truth" (albeit their own version of it), a lot of manipulation can be accomplished to the advantage of the corporations. If they can discredit such science as global warming - then they can continue to make money off the old system, even if it ultimately destroys our environment. If they can keep us focused on such ludicris ideas as "young" earth creationism, they can do whatever they damn well please. Okay. I'm done. Sounding a little conspiratorial, aren't I?

Jenny - posted on 01/13/2011

4,426

16

Good article, I agree with it. I think it offends the American ego to embrace intellectualism. Their ideal seems to be the President they'd have a beer with. There is hope since they voted for Obama though, but they still call him an elitist due to his fancy shmancy edumacation.