As religion increasingly defines what it is to be a conservative, this study is
no surprise. We are becoming our own taliban; we have a way to go but we're
not moving away from it. Science is the first victim.
Who needs facts, anyway?
As long as the Democratic Party remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
plaintiffs' bar, which holds the copyright on junk science, and as long as
liberals by the boatload go in for anti-vaccine, anti-gluten, and anti-genetic
engineering hysterias; as long as liberals insist that the social sciences are
actually scientific, and yes, as long as much of the scientific establishment
remains hopelessly politicized to the point where they can't go five
minutes without a scandal over their suppressing, distorting, or fabricating
evidence, then I've got no problem being extra skeptical of what passes for
science. Not the discipline itself, which is a marvelous thing, but the
practice of it by the contemporary academy.
Here is one conservative who is finishing an advanced degree in engineering and
thinks that global warming is a complete scam. I realize how easily statistics
and studies can be manipulated to fit an agenda. It is not at all an issue of
trusting science, it is whether or not to trust people with a vested interest in
promoting global warming hysteria under the guise of science. Basically, unless your preconceived world view is that cars, industry, energy,
oil, coal, urban sprawl, human existence, and/or big agriculture are evil, then
the whole man made global warming pill is pretty tough to swallow. People who
do believe in man made global warming embrace it because it justifies their
previously held abhorrence of the above mentioned 'evils' of modern
society, not because they were convinced by the scientific evidence.
Well, when emails surface that show an attempt to suppress certain,
'unfavorable' facts about global warming that don't fit the
template already established, one tends to start to have some doubts.@HutteriteIn the Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS Church, the
Lord states, "Worlds without number have I created."A news
article out just today tells of a discovery by researchers of "Billions of
habitable planets within the Milky Way." Try not to paint with the broad
What a bunch of hogwash!Figures may not lie but liars figure. Now
that is called "science." Conservatives have watched and
seen how what used to be actual provable scientific facts have been selectively
twisted into politically correct "junk science" largely supported by
some of the outfits mentioned in the article.Manmade climate change
issue is an excellent example. The leftists and news media (but I repeat
myself) were seduced by Al Gore's "Incorrect Truths" and kept
telling us that it was "settled science" that manmade global warming was
going to melt the icecaps, drown the polar bears, and other assorted horror
stories. Well, that "science" was not settled, and it was eventually
revealed that the supposed data which was the foundation of their claims was
falsified. And, more actual scientists braved the media scorn to challenge the
manmade global warming nonsense.Bravo to conservatives who seek the
scientific truth, and are willing to dispute the junk science! I am more
worried about the gullible leftists who are so easily duped by politically
driven junk science.Stories like this attempt to paint critics of
junk science as a bunch of dumb hicks, to divert attention from junk science.
We scientists are taught in this nation's universities that it's
unhealthy to NOT question things. We shouldn't reject them as a matter of
course, but we should give them a trial by fire. The need for a healthy
skepticism is a truth almost universally acknowledged in the scientific world.
In fact, ANY ISSUE that doesn't allow me to bring up legitimate questions
and concerns, including climate change and science by news conference (meaning
things that the news reports on before they've been peer-reviewed), are
suspect because real science doesn't have to do that. They could be right
on the issue, but they need to allow scientific disagreement.
Evidence does lean towards the scientists having an agenda when it comes to
global warming. Besides, many liberals are atheists and therefore they only
have science to rely on. Conservatives, on the other hand, are much more
religious and that often conflicts with "science". I think LDS members
trust science, but not "science" as some "scientists" have
presented (for example, the idea that humans evolved from apes).
"Here is one conservative who is finishing an advanced degree in engineering
and thinks that global warming is a complete scam. "This is why
you aren't a trusted authority on climate and climatologists aren't
designing bridges. You and I both have STEM degrees but neither of us would be
trusted to perform surgery with good reason.
Science is the study of what is observable by other human beings. The real
question is whether we can trust other human beings. In my experience, trust is
earned not something we are entitled to. This brings me to my next question.
Have scientists earned my trust, or credibility?Many scientists are
looking for answers. I appreciate this doctrine completely. Some of them think
they already have the answers and refuse to listen to anything else.I have experiences of my own that I have observed in one way or another.
Despite whatever Stephen Hawking may claim about God's existence, I have
experiences of my own that are evidence for my own judgement. Nothing anyone
else can say will change that fact. The problem with so many scientists or the
people funding them, is that they push one idea as the right idea and attack any
other idea not fitting their theories. (One wonders whether they even know what
theory means anymore).Science isn't about proving or
disproving, but exploring. Admitting possibility is prerequisite to the entire
nature of exploring and science. I can admit possibility just fine, many
scientists cannot. There is your problem.
It's been said that, "Science is a way to avoid fooling
yourself."Looks like a lot of today's conservatives would
rather be fooled. They value feelings over facts.Whether the
dispute is about global warming or evolution, real scientists argue the
testable, replicable, relevant data, while conservatives increasingly resort to
their feelings of mistrust of "government", conspiracies and
persecution. They think a position paper by a conservative think-tank trumps
peer-reviewed research.What you "believe in your heart" is
totally irrelevant if you don't have testable, objective facts to support
your position.Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Humans and apes share
a common ancestor. Adam, Eve, the Garden of Eden and Noah's flood are
myths. Global warming is real, significant, and primarily caused by human
alteration of atmospheric chemistry.Those are all proven facts.
That's reality. The real world has no obligation to conform to the stories
you like to tell yourself. It's time to live in the real
I don't think the conservative commentary for this article could do more to
prove the data of this study correct. Wow, absolutely astounding and
disheartening to see members of the Church reject science in order to preserve
their political posturing. Indeed, we Mormons believe God to be the
preeminent scientist and we should embrace knowledge in all its forms. Granted,
the wonderful thing about science is that it always subjects itself to scrutiny
(unlike most religions), so there will always be debatable points but to truly
believe that entire sectors of scientific research can be blithely sidestepped
under the auspice that the whole of the scientific community has a liberal bias
is illegitimate. The only bias that science has is a bias towards truth and, as
time goes on, that bias undermines conservative principles. @Riverton Cougar - I hate to break it to you, but the Church has no official
stance on organic evolution. They have stated that the scriptures tell why we
were created, but not how. I bet you also believe the Church thinks abortion is
murder, right? How sad.
Conservatives don't distrust science. They distrust false science in a
You people show such a US-centric view of the world. Global Warming is not a US
Liberal idea. It is accepted by Liberals AND Conservatives in most countries of
the world. Ask any LDS in Europe, for example and they are astounded by the
strange views of their fellow members in Utah. It is only a political football
in the US because Conservatives associate it with Al Gore - the enemy. Take a
look at our Arctic ice cap and most glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere where
most people live, and you can see the evidence, outside whatever statistics we
may have.I don't get how Conservatives would not like the idea
that we could re-invest in our auto industry and regain our lead, stop funneling
money to Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc. and clean up our air in the process. We
don't have to automatically disagree with everything the Democrats say.
Teddy Roosevelt started the modern environmental movement in the US after all.
Just like Civil Rights, the Republicans ceded leadership to the Left.
Riverton Cougar,Most liberals are not atheists. I'm liberal.
I'm an active member of the LDS Church. For the record, being atheist does
not make you an evil person. Being conservative does not make you a saint.
Making broad and sweeping generalizations regarding religious vs. non-religious
or liberal vs. conservative is no better than promoting junk science.
You're only compounding the problem and further dividing us. I urge you to
learn respect for others who differ from your line of thinking. It's
something I'm sure you'll hear a lot about this weekend on KSL.
I am a biologist and a conservative. I am also a "global warming, er,
climate change, skeptic." Many of the "authors" of the UN IPCC
reports are upset because they disagreed with the conclusions. Turns out, these
reports are not really written by scientists who are supposedly the authors, and
the "authors" names are put on just to give it credibility. Then we have
climategate. We have scientists competing for funding, and only those with scare
stories get funded. We have scientists trying to silence the "deniers"
who disagree. When science is mixed in with politics, and when closed minded
scientists say that the debate is over, this is no longer science. Science and
politics don't mix. Further: Turns out water vapor is a huge greenhouse
gas, but you don't hear about that, since there is nothing humans can do
about it. Turns out that future scare stories are based on computer models, but
these models have failed to predict changes that have already happened. Turns
out that if the earth warms and more CO2 is present, there are advantages as
well as disadvantages. When the 1970s global cooling predictions failed,
scaremongers lost their credibility.
Conservatives distrust science? The way I see it, both sides are at fault. In
part this is because there are bad apple scientists who are willing to say what
they need to in order to continue to recieve grant money (Remember global
warming and the e-mail scandel, where many of them admitted to fudging the
data)? In part this is because of Evengelicals who ignore evidence and interpret
the Bible literally. These are the same people who keep saying the world is
going to end.
I'm an educated conservative, and I've read a lot about so-called
"global warming" and climate change. Here are some of the FACTS: (a)
There are 1000s of legitimate sciences worldwide that don't subscribe to
man-made global warming theories. (b) The alarmists' climate models /
predictions are abysmal failures. (c) Much of the anecdotal "evidence"
to support global warming is bogus (i.e. ice melt in Antarctica is primarily due
to undersea volcanic activity.) (d) Claims that "the science is settled"
and that global warming skeptics should be jailed, etc., are all politically
motivated to silence legit opposition and have no scientific basis whatsoever.
(e) The IPCC is a political body that seeks political change and power by
relying on assumptions and woefully bad data (you must remember Hadley CRU?) (f)
Solar activity and ocean currents are the biggest drivers of "Climate
Change". (g) In recorded history, pre-industrial revolution, the earth has
been warmer than it is now. (h) Global temps stabilized and began declining over
10 years ago. (i) More CO2 is actually beneficial to life on earth. (j) The ice
core records show that warming preceded rises in CO2 levels, not the other way
I believe this trend applies more to Southern Conservatives, than LDS
conservatives. LDS are encouraged to embrace mental discipline, study of
sciences and intellectual rigor. Part of the reason LDS are different from other
religious groups is that they encourage all members to obtain a witness of all
truths of their own. A testimony is not in conflict with science--or scientific
discovery. The LDS church's position on controversial and contentious
issues like Evolution are not in conflict (Though there are members who seek to
make it so, the official position remains neutral).
The earth and man were created 6000 years ago. That's all the science one
needs to know.
Thank you for a thoughtful article. It is difficult to have confidence in a
"science" system that rewards government funding to those who can
find-perceive the biggest crisis and goads formerly dedicated and honest
scientists to alter or present unbalanced findings.
Go ahead and stick your heads in the sand. Meanwhile, Western Europe, Japan,
South Korea and other leading industrial nations are investing in new
technologies that are more sustainable than fossil fuel-dependent ones.
Companies in most foreign countries are leading the way. The more we stay
anchored in the past, the more we fall behind. I'm not advocating
government intervention, it's more of a broad cultural shift to looking
into the future. Forget the politics.
So many opinions, expressed by so many voices, and so few are actually informed,
much less "reasonable".The superstition of religion has been
and continues to be the bane of human rationality and intelligent endeavor.This is most unfortunate.Examine the history of religion and
the history of science objectively and empirically. You will likely find that
religion has a long and bloody history of oppression, destruction, conflict, and
deception. Science, on the other hand, has done more for the salvation and
exaltation of mankind than any other force.
All science is fleeting! Everything we think we know will eventually be proven
to be wrong or at least very incomplete. Why put your faith or hope in
something that is constantly changing? Politics and science mix poorly (as in
climate change) and most rational people know it would be extremely unwise if
not very costly to invest much hope or confidence into anything that changes
with every new wind of data (doctrine).By the way, scriptures tell us the
God took existing matter in space and organized the earth about 6,000 years ago.
He hasn’t told us yet how the existing matter came into being, but
someday He will. Until then its more logical to trust the greatest scientist in
the universe (God) compared with mortal, infallible, corruptible, arm of flesh
scientists, which seems very logical to me!
I work with a lot of scientists but I am not a scientist. One thing that I have
observed is that they are allowed to further their research through funding.
Often times the non-political dynamics of their research is compromised due to
pressure to find funding. There is so much invested not only by the scientist
to further their understanding of the unknown but the expectation to see results
from those who financially support them. Unlike an investment that will bring
financial rewards, the financial investment made in non-polital scientific
research can be a hard sell. It seems to be a lose/ lose proposition until you
take a closer look at the outcomes. The purpose of scientific research is
rarely quantifiable but over time data that is collected, analyzed and published
is not the end of the story. It is just the beginning of the next chapter. We
need science and corageous scientist to risk the security of positive public
opinion to progress. I once heard that when a scientist says he knows the
answer, it no longer can be called science.
Whether it’s meant to or not, science often times conflicts with Religious
“beliefs.” Thus the standoff between science and Conservatives, who
have bought full-in on Religious doctrine, and therefore see facts/data/science
as a threat to what they believe.It is ironic that many on here claim
science should not be trusted because it is just one persons’ view/opinion
given the data in front of them. While they have grown to accept without
question the views/opinions/recollections/word of people who happened to claim
as their evidence a spiritual nature, not numbers or figures.
The notion that there is a huge group of colluding scientists lying about
climate change for grant money simply isn't true. 99% of scientists who
study climate all agree that climate change is real. The problem is that
'truthiness' (if it sounds true it must be true) trumps truth for many
conservatives. They apply the same approach to the constitution and the
scriptures. When evidence meets preconceived notions, conservatives choose to
Geoengineering / Weather Modification is destroying the health of the world.
There is no oversight, and many agencies and private contractors are putting
toxic chemicals in the sky,using us a guinea pigs, and I hope people research
this fact. Lobbyist are now in high positions of our government and are pushing
weather control and pushing genetically modified foods that other countries have
banned, because it will destroy our organs and health. By now everyone has seen
crisscrossing streaks of white clouds trailing behind jet aircraft, turning the
sky into a murky haze. This is altering the chemical composition of soil and
water. They have been underway since about 1990 and the effect has been
devasting to crops, wildlife, and human health.They do weather modification
experiments more in UT, ID, CO, and TX, more than most locations. I believe the
4 brain tumor deaths on our block was caused from this experimentation. I hope
people investigate and read what other countries are saying. We have to bring
out the truth regarding the assaults that are taking place against our health.
Please do research on Geoengineering, Weather Modification, and Chemtrails,
because there is a lot of info available. This is destroying our health.
Jared from CT - the problem is that you culled your 'facts' from
conservative talking points. Unfortunately, none of them are true.
Bruce R McKonkie said it best "between true religion and true science, there
is no difference" That being said, our understanding of BOTH
evolves over time and understanding. Man at one time thought the world was
flat. The apostle Peter had a hard time understanding the Ressurrection until
it happened. People guessed as to why Blacks were denied the Priesthood, and
have later said their understanding was limited and wrong.We just
need to accept that as long as we are human, we will always (hopefully) be in a
state of learning and progression. We need to be open to learn new things,
secularly, and spiritually. If it ever comes down that there is an apparent
contradiction, then our understanding in at least of the two is lacking.We know not everything in Science, and God has not revealed everything
to us on the Spiritual side, to suppose otherwise is folly.
It's easy to see why people would say they don't trust scientists.They probably stay away from physicians when they are sick or injured.
The doctor might try to give them antibiotics or use MRI or some dubious
science-based treatment.They don't own electric appliances or
any electronic devices. It's pretty obvious that the whole electricity
thing is a hoax.Who can blame them for questioning the validity of
developments in agriculture, chemistry, and materials science over the past
centuries? Clearly the scientists are always pursuing their own agendas.Yes, scientists as a group are certainly worthy of our distrust.
Wow - some of the comments above show how readily certain conservative positions
are willing to distort reality."Climategate" is a
manufactured scandal. It is in fact a non-scandal. At least four independent
investigations have found no evidence of any attempt to distort the science.
References to a "trick," related to a statistical method
that the scientist in question thought was clever, as in "I tried using your
trick of using chicken wire in the garden to keep the rabbits out."
References to "hide the decline" related to finding a way to reduce the
errors in tree ring data that became less accurate as a measure of temperature
in recent decades.Someone else above nailed it when they said
climate scientists shouldn't be designing bridges, and guys with a degree
in engineering shouldn't pretend to be experts about climate.What's so bizarre is the claim by conservatives that climate science has
become politicized, when in fact it is they who are politicizing the science.
Genuine scientists do not see a controversy - global warming is real. The only
real controversy is what do we do about it.
@Mountanman"By the way, scriptures tell us the God took existing
matter in space and organized the earth about 6,000 years ago."Really? Where are these scriptures? Which scriptures tell us exactly how
long ago the earth was created?
I can't remember who said it but it goes like this: "There are three
kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and, statistics!"
Re: "You and I both have STEM degrees but neither of us would be trusted to
perform surgery with good reason."Yeah, but even those who are
trusted to perform surgery have credibility problems.A recent study
found that 90+% of published cancer research is flawed or irreplicable. The
culprit was identified as an "academic climate" that is curiously
uncurious, at least when it comes to "publish or perish."
1896 was the year that the first scientist did the calculations and published
the model of how global warming works. I'm sure he was heavily influenced
by Al Gore. As to the "climategate" affair. It has been investigated by
several independent commission, all of whom found there was no manipulation, or
distortion of data.Have you heard of the Heartland Institute? Some
of their email were also recently leaked, concerning their strategy of using
corporate donations to publish denialist propaganda.
Wow, the comments on this article exemplify exactly what the article is
discussing. The amount of misinformation that has been spewed by some of the
commentators above is absolutely ridiculous. What's ironic is that while
conservatives claim their distrust of science is caused by science's
political motives, it is conservative political institutes that have spread
false information about science relating to global warming. I highly suggest
those who actually want to understand the history of the global warming debate
read "Merchants of Doubt" and look up what the Marshall Institute has
done to spread false information about global warming, the ozone, and effects of
I doubt they distrust true "Science" (Physics, Chemestry, Mathematics,
etc). But when you mix in some recent politically motivated pseudo_science...
you may get some doubts.I have no problem with analytical science
like physics, calculus, etc, I can prove and predict with experaments and
mathematical proofs, but I differentiate between that and the junk_science you
get on the morning news on the TV (like the latest "scientific" weight
loss study, the latest discovery that will help you live longer and happier,
etcI have no problem with analytical science, but when the
"science" is not provable, and you just trust the experts or have faith
they are right, or a vote to get consensus... but can't prove it with the
scientific method, and the "science" has a political agenda and a profit
angle for people like Al Gore, and can only be proven by policical methonds
(votes, consensus, etc) instead of the scientific method.... you lose some
Read the article people – it isn’t JUST Global Warming.That
was just used as an obvious example.Conservatives [in GENERAL]
increasingly distrust science, [meaning ALL Science]. Not just Global
Warming.Not to wonder, their heros and mentors [Limbaugh, Hannity,
Beck] were all a bunch of college drop outs, who spew garbage like tobacco
doesn’t cause cancer, ect.
The scariest thing is when you can convince people that what is before their own
faces is not true. Rejecting empirical evidence because it doesn't fit
into your own preconceived ideas about how the world works is a good way toward
establishing theocracy, or at the very least, irrational tyranny. We're
headed back to the days when the church tortured scientists for asserting the
earth revolves around the sun. Instead of testing scientific
hypotheses and questioning them based on evidence, conservatives are quickly
becoming the anti-science party that merely screams "Heretic!"
I'm with you Blue. It's interesting how the article just randomly
connects global warming to all of science, and then off we go. Global warming
despite all the real science that has been done has been turned into a pop
science, because of it's political ramifications. "I've done a
lot of reading about climate change..I'm getting an advanced degree
therefor I think". Some how you never hear these statements, even in casual
conversations about particle physics, or microbiology.The wildest
scientific claim hidden in this thread was this "A news article out just
today tells of a discovery by researchers of "Billions of habitable planets
within the Milky Way." . billions..with water, atmospheres etc. Seriously.
Conservatives don't trust science.That seems very appropriate,
seeing how......science increasingly has no trust or faith in
@ CHS. Thanks for asking! It’s a chronological analysis of events
recorded in the Old Testament. In other words, we know how to count backwards.
What we don’t know is how long the intelligent design (organization of
matter) took. In essence, my argument is that true science and true religion is
the same thing! The problem we struggle with today is that we have much false
science and false religion competing and we are left to distinguish the
difference, at least for now.
Questioning is okay, nobody has a problem with questioning or healthy
skepticism. It's the fanatical rejection of everything to the contrary of
your view under the assumption that it's one all global conspiracy
theory... that's the problem.
The problem with this article, and the ensuing comments, is that they rely on
gross overgeneralizations. This is an inept rhetorical strategy that allows
people to make outrageous accusations without having to be accountable for them.
First no one should be expected to trust “science”. That goes
completely against the nature of what science should be. Science isn’t an
authority, it is a system. Good science explains its reasoning and evidence.
Criticisms against science should therefore not be levied against its authorial
credibility, but against its reasoning and evidence. If someone doubts the
validity of global warming, then they should show why the scientific evidence
doesn’t stack up. That’s all pretty simple. Science can neither be
right or wrong, because at its heart it is not a body of knowledge, but rather a
system of observation. Scientists can, and often are, be wrong. That’s
okay. But, the conversation is much more useful when it is approached on
scientific grounds, rather than invented partisan grounds.
It isn't science. It's the abuse of science for political reasons.
When engineers take off their engineering hat and replace it with a
manager's hat people, like the Challenger crew, die. They should stand up
to the truth. When I was a Catholic kid I was taught that one purpose of
religion, and it's religious beliefs, is to describe why God does things.
The purpose of science, and it's theories, is to describe how God does
it.It seems like weekly, something comes out that refutes something that
came out previously. I can see improvement in accuracy, but going the opposite
direction brings up the question of which, if either, is correct. Was data
manipulated by the principal investigator or whoever paid for the research?This is the source of distrust.
I'm a scientist. I'm working on completing my degree in Earth Studies.
I can with basic 101 concepts prove global warming, due to human activity, to be
false. I agree global warming (climate change) is happening, but we as humans
have no control over it by any degree. I believe in truth and most of the so
called facts out there are false. It's not science I don't trust
it's people and what they claim to be science. For religion if you question
me on that, I believe God to be the Ultimate Scientist.
@ Mormon Cowboy. You nailed it and you are absolutely correct. Any scientist
that says they have the final word is no scientist at all. All science is
incomplete and all religion is incomplete as well (I refer to the LDS 9th
article of Faith). I love that about my religion, to know that it is
The increased political nature of our world is the result of the commercial
competition between the giants of our world. As the one group of giant
corporations find ways to get a commercial advantage, there is always the other
group who looses. In times past, distance and isolation played an important
part in tempering the conflicts. Today’s world is becoming so crowded
that this tiny world cannot hope to separate the conflicts. If we
would remove science and other non commercial entities from the effects of the
commercial competition we would have to remove the commercial giants from our
One scientific study isn't proof positive. It is only after several
studies, sometimes many studies are conducted that a theory is established or
rejected. Often what happens in the media is one study is reported on and
everybody jumps on the bandwagon. Then later, after more research is done, the
picture which emerges might not be so simple. Climate change is
that is real. Even the Koch-funded climate skeptic realized he had been wrong
claiming climate change was not real. To those Utahns who claim there is no
need to be concerned I would like to ask, what will happen to Utah's
economy when there is no snow? What will you do for water when there is no
snowpack? A certain level of skepticism in life is healthy. But
that means skepticism applied to both sides of the question.
Mountanman: "Until then its more logical to trust the greatest scientist in
the universe (God)..."Maybe, but has he published any original
research in peer reviewed journals? I see a pretty scant record of
publication-- only one work of consequence, and it was written by the technical
staff, not the principal investigator.
Yes, I have a college degree, and yes, I am more and more distrustful of
science. This is as much factor of science becoming less scientific, more
politicized, and shoddy; as it is my disbelief of real and valid science. No one
should ever assume that just because something is called "science," that
is is correct. Science has been wrong often, and recently.
"1896 was the year that the first scientist did the calculations and
published the model of how global warming works."Yes. Svante
Arrhenius. And his calculations predict vastly less warming, for each doubling
of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, than either the alarmists or the
"consensus" people predict.To get enough warming to care
about, you need to hypothesize that from this point forward, there will be
significant net-positive feedback effects that magnify the small amount of
initial CO2-driven climate warming. This is a problem, because for most of
Earth's history, feedbacks have been net-negative -- that is, the Earth is
cooler than it would be if only greenhouse -gas warming were driving its
temperature, becuase convection and other feedbacks cool things down. I
don't see the case being made sufficiently for this assumption, and neither
do my astrophysicist father or geologist brother (both of whose disciplines,
incidentally, bear directly on many of the key disciplines that go into the
hybrid field of "climatology".)
As some people have pointed out... many theories that were once accepted as
"science" were subsequently disproven, so why would we now make it a
point of ridicule to not accept everthing a politician/scientist says as 100%
fact foever more with no more questioning or testing? Even thought there is
not hard proof (only consensus of opinion) that the theory is proven fact?I don't think it's a threat to question science. That is the
role of scientests... to question what we NOW know and to prove it or dis-prove
it in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. I don't think we will ever
stop discovering new things and disproving old things as long as man exists.
If conservatives are losing confidence in science at a rate greater than the
national average it is because they are the ones paying closest attention to
what has been happening to science. A lot of science has become agenda driven
rather than fact driven for the purpose of politics or money or recognition.
There have been a lot of examples of this that have been excused and glossed
over by mainstream spokesmen and if you are not paying close attention you may
have missed it. You could also look at it in this way: Because the practice of
science is closely tied to Academia, which has elevated “Political
Correctness” to its highest principle, conservatives are the segment of
the general population less likely to align themselves with the influences of
Political Correctness. Political Correctness is politics and emotion based and
de-emphasizes truth and science so this would be a reasonable decision by
@The AmericanYou should submit your evidence get it peer reviewed
and collect your Nobel Prize.
@ Lagomorgh. God has no peers, only floundering understudies and we call them
"@Riverton Cougar - I hate to break it to you, but the Church has no
official stance on organic evolution. They have stated that the scriptures tell
why we were created, but not how."Um, I think Genesis makes it
clear that the creation of humans came before the creation of animals. What
version of the Holy Bible do you read?"I bet you also believe
the Church thinks abortion is murder, right?"I base my comments
on Elder Nelson's talk "Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless" in
the Oct. 2008 Ensign/Liahona."Most liberals are not
atheists."I never said most were atheists, I simply said many
are atheists, which is true."For the record, being atheist does
not make you an evil person. Being conservative does not make you a saint.
Making broad and sweeping generalizations regarding religious vs. non-religious
or liberal vs. conservative is no better than promoting junk science."I never implied either. I said that religious people have religion to
explain many mysteries of life, while atheists don't hold to those beliefs
and turn to science for answers. Sorry if that offends you, but it seems you
chose to be offended by it.
"Bob A. BoheyMarlborough, MAThe earth and man were created 6000
years ago. That's all the science one needs to know."Very
comical. And the Earth is still flat .... or else religion will put you in
Don't know why I'm getting denied here, it's ludicrous and
biased. Other's are making the same opinions.All this talk
about Science being 'questionable' because it comes from humans who
can sometimes be distrustful and biased. All I'm saying is the same can be
said for any religion ... it was all transcribed, voiced, or written by a human
through his interpretation of God. Science is all transcribed, voiced, and
written by a human through his interpretation of studies.So both
religion and science, ultimately, come down to a human being telling us
'the truth'. We either take it or leave it.
@RivertonCougar"Um, I think Genesis makes it clear that the creation
of humans came before the creation of animals. What version of the Holy Bible do
you read?"Read Genesis 1:20-26. Animals came before humans. I
use KJV and looked it up on the LDS scripture site.
Science is amazing and we have been truly blessed by brilliant minds.It is also unfortunate that more and more are pursuing the money at the
exclusion of all else. It has reached the point that in many situations, if you
want to know why a scientific study came up with the results they did --- follow
the money. The results are often tainted by who ever was paying for the study
(if you don't come up with the results the sponsors wanted, you don't
get paid).I have no problems with science as a discipline, only with
scientists who seem void of discipline.
@ Riverton CougarUm, I think Genesis makes it clear that the
creation of humans came before the creation of animals. What version of the Holy
Bible do you read?Gen 1:24-25 "24 And God said, “Let the
earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and
creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it
was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the
livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground
according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."Gen 1:26
"Then God said, “Let us make man[a] in our image, after our
likeness..." I actually don't believe in God at all, but
even I know the order of creation.
While we are examining the bloody history of religion- we should also examine
the good history of religion. See, that is what it means to be objective, fair,
and balanced. If we only looked at 'bad religious people' we would
have a biased sample. According to any line of reason or logic regarding
observation- one cannot represent the truth by looking at 'only the
information we want'. I guess us religious people can be
'reasonable' by nearly every accepted definition of the word.If one looked at Rene Descartes and Galileo one would find highly intelligent
men. They believed in God as have many other predecessor scientists. Just
because one believes in God, participates and upholds the right to organized
religion and practices it for themselves, and so on- does not in any way
presuppose anything other than those facts. I still understand and argue
objectively, I still support observing data according to high standards, etc.
When such persons claim that I don't simply because I'm religious (a
prejudicial argument), they have condemned their own argument according to their
own methods of reason and logic not supporting prejudice (ad hominem).
I'm a conservative who believes "true" science and religion are the
same. We should welcome all facts as being friendly and ultimately a part of a
great whole of universal truth.We should promote scientific
research, not hinder it.Oh, and by the way, Global Warming will be
disproved in 20 years.
@Riverton CougarRe: Creation - It seems others have readily pointed
out your glaring misunderstanding of basic biblical tenets. But, to answer your
question, I read the KJV and suggest you try doing so more often to avoid this
from happening again. If you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible
then I’ll sell you two tickets to a musical featuring a talking serpent,
I’ll sell them cheap, say a rib? Regardless, your perspective does not
change the fact that the Church has no official stance and members, like me,
find complete harmony between evolution and LDS doctrine.Re:
Abortion - Take your cues from wherever you want but you should consider
actually consulting the Church’s official stance wherein we allow for
abortions under various circumstances. What Elder Holland, and others, never
square with is that if abortion is murder then the Church is willfully condoning
murder based on the manner of conception (ie rape). When considering such an
abortion, members are directed to prayerfully consider their options. So, if it
were murder, our Church is asking us to petition God whether we should murder
our child. Sorry, that is not reality and abortion is not murder.
Contrary to "popular" media reports and related claims, the science is
NOT settled, and there is NOT a consensus on the idea that man is causing global
warming / climate change. Such outlandish claims are not scientific -- they are
an attempt to railroad the issue. The reality is there are 1000s of skeptical
scientists, plenty of contrary evidence, and lots of holes in the
alarmists' research and climate models. Don't believe me? I can't
include links, but for starters you can Google these searches:1)
Open Kyoto to Debate An open letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada,
from 60 Expert Scientists2) Global Warming Petition Project3) Wall
Street Journal The Climate Change Climate Change4) friends of scienceAre there scientists in both camps? Yes. To ignore the one camp
exclusively in favor of the other is irresponsible. Read what the skeptics have
to say. My conclusion after a lot of reading of both sides is that a) the
science is not settled, and b) there is no crisis. The socialist politicians and
political bodies that want to control our lives through climate mandates
don't like that conclusion.
The liberal comments here are laughable. Liberals don't understand the
very definition of theory. They hold onto Global Warming Theory like it is the
First Law of Thermodynamics.A theory, such as Global Warming or
Carbon Cycle theories are not proven facts like the Laws of Thermodynamics or
Gravity.Theories, while able to explain some things, are not 100%
correct, hence the term theory. Theories should always be questioned and never
trusted all of the time. All this proves is that if you want a good scientist,
you should look for a conservative.
@RedshirtYour comment is laughable because you don't know what
the scientific definition of theory is. Theories are the best (i.e. most likely)
available explanations of what's going on.
Sorry, what I meant to say was that the creation of humans is separate from the
creation of animals. I was distracted when I typed that. Unfortunately, other
people caught it before I had a chance to reread it and correct it. Of course
animals came first; man was created on the last day. However, the creation of
man was not done through animals, and the Bible says otherwise. Seeing how much
more worth we are than the animals is evidence that we did not originate from
them, or else there would be other advanced animals. Our logic and reasoning
powers far surpass theirs.About abortion, the term "murder"
does not necessarily apply, but abortion is terminating a life. However, we
have seen examples of people's lives being terminated, even for medical
reasons. They are extremely rare, but so are abortions due to rape (0.3%).
Even then, the church says you may CONSIDER an abortion in those rare cases of
incest, rape, and physical life of the mother or baby (again, around 2%). There
are exceptions. They are, however, exceptions nonetheless. Abortion for any
other reason is taking life away unnecessarily (kind of like murder), for which
there should be consequences.
I'm really getting tired of this issue. Religion and science fit hand in
hand, we just have to get past human divisions.As for Global
Warming, I think religious conservatives need to change their tune on the issue.
Even if it turned out the facts are not there that we humans are causing Global
Warming, please explain to me why that means we have the right to completely
mis-use our planet anyway? Outside of our very lives and the Atonement of Jesus
Christ, this world is the greatest gift God has ever given us. And this is how
we thank Him? I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never know
any human who wasn't hurt over a gift they gave someone that they really
put a lot into that was then mistreated by the gift receiver. Think about it.
"According to any line of reason or logic regarding observation- one cannot
represent the truth by looking at 'only the information we
want'."- This goes both ways. I see the most irrational
and illogical justifications from church members about 'questionable'
doctrines, changes in scripture, etc. They see things how they want to see
them.Same for those who wouldn't believe in God if he came in
their sleep and talked to them. "Just a dream" I would say. I gave up
believing in all of that a long time ago.I firmly believe this
statement: Just because you want something to be the true, doesn't mean it
Scientific studies show: eggs are bad for you ... wait, eat more
eggs. Whole milk is a killer ... hang on, kids aren't drinking enough milk.
The sun causes cancer ... hey, low on vitamin D, get out in the sun. Men should
have a PSA analysis once a year ... a PSA analysis has no effect on prostate
cancer treatment. Junk food makes us fatter, eat healthy stuff ... oops, lean
red meat more than once in a blue moon will kill ya, and white rice'll give
you Type II diabetes ...still, ya gotta eat something, try grass. Cell phones
cause brain tumors ... uh, forget that. Thalidomide will fix your morning
sickness, ma'am ... uh oh, birth defects. Alchemy will turn your rocks into
gold ... ah, heck, forget that. Red wine is good for the heart ... wait a
minute, no it ain't. Take a multiple vitamin daily ... no, actually they
are bad for you. Don't take it. If one put ALL one's trust
in science, one would be buying food and throwing it away weekly, and then
returning to the grocery to repurchase it, purchasing and tossing cell phones
and then going back to get another one.
"I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath
to admit out loud: climate change is real.I am a moderate Republican,
fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability,
self-empowerment, and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a
meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me
uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new
and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters, I’m in a small,
frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about
the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy
powered-up, long-term. It’s ironic.The root of the word conservative
is “conserve.” A staunch Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, set
aside vast swaths of America for our National Parks System, the envy of the
world. Another Republican, Richard Nixon, launched the EPA. Now some in my party
believe the EPA and all those silly “global warming alarmists” are
going to get in the way of drilling and mining our way to prosperity. Well, we
have good reason to be alarmed."Paul Douglas
It is clear from the comments here that the bulk of mistrust in science derives
from people's religious beliefs that conflict with objective,
evidence-based reality.Comments such as "God is the ultimate
scientist" make no more sense than saying that "Spiderman is the
ultimate superhero."I now know the perfect way to throw the GOP
presidential process into a firestorm of disarray: All it will take is for
someone to ask a GOP presidential candidate if they believe that species,
including humans, have evolved over millions of years through the process of
random mutation and natural selection.The meltdown will be epic.
Truthseeker,I don't think that you are being fair in suggesting
that Republicans want to destroy the planet. Of course they want to take care
of it! But they don't take it too kindly when a group of scientists with
an agenda suggest that we in a sense go back to the stone age to reduce our
signature on the planet. That may be an extreme example, but it seems like a
"sky is falling" kind of thing.Blue,Of course it
makes sense that God is the ultimate scientist, because I know for a fact that
He is better, more powerful, smarter, and wiser than any scientist on the
planet. Besides, I don't understand how your plan to throw the GOP in
disarray will work.
The problem is simple anything in the republican party today is all or nothing.
There is room for science and religion in the same discussion. There is room to
say that global warming is real and we need to put reasonable regulations in
place. There is room for some tax increases without life as we know it coming
to an end. The either or mentality currently espoused to by republicans is not
good for them or the country.
@Riverton CougarRe: evolution - Clearly, based on the fact that you
are posting on these threads, you have access to the internet. Please, go look
up the Church's official stance on evolution and report back. Your claims
on evolution are not supported by the Church Doctrine you purport to follow, not
very logical or reasonable, in my book. Re: abortion - Again, please
consult the Church's official stance. They use the phrase "potential
for life" so, no, a fetus is not considered "alive." But, just for
my entertainment, please make the case that since conception occurred by incest
that God then allows one to "take the life" of that child. Come on,
justify the "taking of that child's life" merely due to the manner
in which that child was conceived. Your "exception" is neither logical
nor reasonable. Net net, please do some due diligence and actually
review the Church's official stance on these issues. I know it is hard for
you conservatives to swallow, but the truth is the truth, and it will us all a
lot of time in explanation.
Understanding and accepting scientific data, concepts, and explanations requires
a moderate amount of critical thinking.Some folks would simply
prefer to accept the dogmatic preachings of a pastor and the anecdotal passages
of the Bible to help them understand the world and cope with the stresses of
There was a time when science said you just needed to 'bleed' people
to get rid of the vapors. There was a time when science knew nothing about
microscopic germs. There was a time when science said the only way to stop
witchcraft was to kill the witch. Science is ever growing and changing
according to man's discoveries. We are wise when we combine the current
scientific discoveries with our faith. Sometimes science is a long time in
getting an "answer" only to change again and again. It was in the
1800's when God told us to stay away from alcohol and cigarettes. Science
laughed. Now they join us in what was originally a move on faith. "With
all thy getting, get wisdom."
To "atl134" yes, what you say is true, but that does not mean that it is
correct. For example there used to be a theory that the earth was flat. The
explaination worked, until somebody continued to question it, and it was proven
false. The same with the Earth being the center of the universe, it was thought
to be correct until the questions that were being asked proved it wrong.A theory is not the same as a law. You and your ilk would have us view
scientific theory the same as scientific law. I am sorry it doesn't fit
into your world view, but they are not the same, and theories should be
Lets not get all wound around the axle on the details. No one can out know
another to better faith. We know the planet is older than 6,000 years. We know
there is much about the history of this planet we don't have scientific nor
religious good answers for. But we do know what we need to do. We
know this planet was organized for our benefit, and for the generations that
fallow us. Abusing it is the ultimate form of selfishness, and frankly
disrespect, leaving it in a lessor state for those who come after us. That
alone should be enough for us to honor our stewardship and assure that those
that follow have the same blessing we enjoy.So I could really care
less about global warming. We know it is happening. We have little control
over it. But there is much we can control, and these "discussions" are
simply smoke screen for what we know we should be doing.