Have conservatives lost faith in science?

I would like to run a "scientific" experiment right here. Let us just see how politicized science can be based on other member's reactions and come to your own conclusion.

The Theory of Evolution is not fact. Pure and simple...hence why it is called a theory.

How many of you that just read that line felt a physical emotional change in your body when you read that? I bet there are a few at least. My statement is not political in any way shape or form. Even the most ardent evolutionary theorist makes the same definition as a theory yet many will read that and instantly jump to begin defending the theory of evolution. Why? Because something they believe has been attacked in their perspective.

If an argument ensues it will generally fall into two separate groups of those who believe in Creationism and those who believe in Evolution.

Another test sample...Global Warming is a theory not a scientific fact. My goodness?! How could someone say that? There is evidence of Global Warming! Except, there is a very large split across the scientific community where each has separate views with equal "evidence" proving otherwise. If it were two or three scientists that merely presented questions to a scientifically proven fact it would be different. But such is not the case. Thus, until there is empirical evidence to support solid and factual claims, a theory remains a theory.

Math is factual. Electricity is proven. Pregnancy is fact. Weather patterns and weather prophecy is ever changing and cannot be factually predicted...otherwise weathermen and women would be able to predict tornadoes, hurricanes and geologists could predict earthquakes...yet, these predictions are often inaccurate or flat our wrong.

Is there proof of evolution? Of course! Our brains continually evolve. It is a measurable effect over time and recorded history. However, the theory of evolution is not accurately measurable because there is no way to truly and empirically prove accuracy in time measurements from millions and billions of years ago. And if you think there is you really need to check your ego because you are saying that you have an understanding of science beyond that of any scientist on the face of the planet.

Next there is the question of the point of origin for evolution. Even if you believe that order came from chaos, where did the chaos come from? You cannot have something from nothing unless you believe it was created. If there was a big bang from gaseous clouds in the universe, where did the gases come from?

Either way, such theories (Creation included) are based in faith since there is no actual physical proof to unequivocally support either theory without that faith. So, even though some claim to be non-religious yet believe in evolution you still have faith in something. Many would define the act of faith can be defined as a religion.

Now, I have presented comments that are openly supported from both sides of the spectrum. I predict that there are some who are going to argue and slam me even though I have not made a claim of support for one theory or the other here. I have merely asked questions.

So, my point here is simply to present an example of how science (which some here claim is not in question but instead it is the politicization of science) is questioned without the insertion of politics. And for those who claim I have inserted religion into the argument, take a moment and understand something. The belief in Creationism is equally scientific as in evolution. For God to create everything around us, He must be the greatest scientist. Therefore, it is equally a scientific theory based in faith as in evolution.

It is all of our jobs to question science. Anyone who believe claims without empirical proof are fools. Just because you failed to do your research before believing something that turns out to be nonsense is not the fault of anyone but yourself. So, when you find out something you believed was not correct and continue to support faulty science out of embarrassment and pride, well, you are a fool.

Support science you believe in but know when it is time to hang up the towel and except it may be proved false. Continuing to support false science or claiming theory to be fact because it is politically correct or benefits you even though you know it is false is simply cowardice.

P.S. Sorry this is so long...I did not mean for it to be but I have a habit of that. I do apologize nonetheless.

 

One other quick point, the government is equally to blame for misrepresenting political topics as scientific topics. I.E. the new healthcare laws...where it can be paraphrased the Obama admin claims without national healthcare (political) the general health of Americans will drastically decline (scientific).

Green energy (scientific) is being regulated (politics) into our markets.

More explicitly, "green cars" (scientific) are supported with tax breaks to control markets (politics).

Abortion (scientific) is constantly shoved into public view (politics).

Racial differences (scientific) are constantly emblazoned by politicians (obviously politics). Do you really need examples here? How about the recent murder in Florida. How many thousands of other questionable, unjustified or otherwise unexplainable murders are committed daily yet the one in Florida is such a huge issue?

Why doesn't the Obama admin care about gang-bangers (of ALL colors and races) killing people? Hell, at least the guy in Florida went through the process to legally carry a weapon. Criminals do not even go to those lengths but no one cares about that...hmmmm....but never mind them. And definitely do not mind the vigilante Black Panthers calling for the guy's death, giving out his address for others to take the law into their own hands while the same uninterested administration wont even let states protect their own borders. How anyone supports this admin really is beyond me...but I digress.

And why are scientists brought into question now days? Maybe because they themselves are so often politically motivated <cough> federal money thrown at every new idea under the sun no matter how outlandish. $500 million for already bankrupt solar screen manufacturers!? Really? Really...

 

I can solve this dilemma.

Assume anything the government pushes is false. If you do that you will be correct about 99% of the time.

 

I've worked full time in research for the last 11 years and never come across direct data or the presentation of data that was politicized in my field.

Sure some science can be politicized, but uu_ood's estimation that it accounts for about 0.1% of research is a good estimation. You only hear about it because the media does a good job of making sure that's all you hear about, because after all what's news if it's not politically charged?

 

I have a great example for you of the non-.01% that is "not politicized" that will become so shortly.

The walking stick insect on the Ball Pyramid near Lord Howie Island off Australia was thought extinct and has been taken into a lab environment and bred to recover the species. As the NPR article states they are wanting to reintroduce the insect to Lord Howie island.

Now, the evolutionist idea of survival of the fittest would say the species should remain extinct. But, scientist believe they were killed off by the island's rat population. Thus, they want to kill off the island's rat population; which would make people on the island happy.

My question is this, what happens when the insect breeds beyond control and the current irritant of rats shifts into this insect, which is also known to breed rapidly.

Thus, at the moment, this non-political science is already becoming political as scientists who want to kill rats and introduce this insect are arguing their case with island residents who are fearful the lack of rats will basically replace rats with insects.

So, yes, the science of the insect is not political but where to place the insect and what to do with it is. Thus, the science has become politicized.

While the science at its core may not be political, most science ends up becoming political at one level or the other. If anything, I would say it is a small percentage of science that does not become political. You can split hairs with the lower argument that science is or is not political at its base, but eventually, most becomes just so.

 

What field? Public or private?

True

 

Evolution is not politicized in that the government funds studies on evolution to address politics. EPA is different, they do use studies in order to adjust their policies. Evolution is completely separate from national and local policies. It just so happens that anti-science conservatives hate evolution so much.

 

Combination of molecular biology, biochemistry and protein structure/chemistry...all in the public/academic area.

 

As a conservative myself, I have 0 faith in science, the theory of global warming on its own gives me plenty of reasons to ignore any scientific data.

 

Says the person who uses a computer, the internet, a vehicle, electricity,
medications, dishwashers, etc...
If you have 0 faith in science, why don't you live in a cave?

 

A lot of pharmaceutical drugs also have independent studies done on them. Most of those drugs are effective at what they do. Though I'd definitely disagree with giving kids powerful drugs, like amphetamine/ritalin. Plus, the fact that marijuana is illegal is the government's fuck up. Science has shown it's safe and useful for several symptoms and illnesses. Which is ironic, considering you've lost so much faith in science. It isn't the science that's bad, it's the government that picks and chooses studies.

 

Learn what a scientific theory is. Gravity is a theory too. Scientific theories are not simple conjectures.

 

Yes, because you've done years and years of scientific climatology research and you've come to the conclusion that the other 97% of climatologist are wrong?

 

That's an argument against politicized science, not science in general.

 

Pseudo being the important word here though.

What they do is not science.

Michael Jackson may have whitened his skin but he was still not Caucasian.

 

I think it's only rational to be skeptical of a field study that is constantly being proven wrong. At least once a month something comes out debunking IPCC lackeys.

For example; Medieval warming WAS global ? new science contradicts IPCC ? The Register

Turns out the Medieval warming period was world wide, and yet it preceded SUVs...