• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rick Santorum attacks "science dogma"

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
31,992
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Rick Santorum, zealous promoter of religious dogma, thinks he sees "dogma" in the world of science, and he doesn't like it.

The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma

As with evolution, the 'consensus' on climate change has become an ideology.

Rick Santorum

Questioning the scientific consensus in pursuit of the truth is an important part of how science has advanced through the centuries. But what happens when the scientific consensus becomes an ideology that trumps the pursuit of truth? Answer: Those making legitimate inquiries are ostracized, the careers of dissenters are destroyed, and debate is stifled.

Unfortunately, I am referring not only to the current proponents of the theory of man-made global warming. In 2001, I offered a legislative amendment about teaching the subject of evolution. I caught more flak for this simple amendment than for almost anything else I championed in the Senate. What heresy did I propose? Here is the full text:

"Good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."
Click to expand...

So he starts by claiming that the scientific consensus regarding evolution and global warming has become "an ideology." I have to point out here, using his own proposed language, that evolution and global warming both fall under "data or testable theories of science" and not "philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science"! Yes, indeed, students should be taught the difference. They should be taught that evolution and global warming are testable theories that agree with the data, and are not "philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science."

Moving on:
A recent Gallup poll found that only 14 percent of Americans agreed that "humans developed over millions of years" and "God had no part." A Zogby poll this year found that 78 percent of Americans agreed that schoolteachers "should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." The same poll also found that 86 percent of self-identified liberals agreed that "teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory." But the scientific "community" claims there is no controversy, and that debate should be banned.
Click to expand...
The old argumentum ad populum, combined with a straw man ("debate should be banned").

Then he complains about "indoctrination". Last time I checked, indoctrination is what religions do. Scientists do "education", not "indoctrination":
It is one thing for ideologically driven science to indoctrinate children in classrooms. It is another for politicians to use science to destroy national economies and redistribute global wealth. I refer, of course, to the latest scientific non-controversy, man-made global warming.

Climate change's Pharisees reassure us that the global-warming science is still settled. Never mind recent revelations of gross misconduct on the part of Britain's Climatic Research Unit. Never mind its repeated refusal to release vital climate data. And never mind the legitimate questions that climate-change skeptics have been asking for some time. There's nothing to see here; move along.
Click to expand...
Never mind that these are all fake, ginned-up "controversies" that have been investigated several times and the scientists cleared of wrongdoing.

:hb:
 
A recent Gallup poll found that only 14 percent of Americans agreed that "humans developed over millions of years" and "God had no part." A Zogby poll this year found that 78 percent of Americans agreed that schoolteachers "should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
Click to expand...

Really?.........Really? Thats insane!
 
It takes special talent for another Republican candidate to make Romney look sane and reasonable.
 
Level of disgust that someone this misguided and wrong represents the views of as many people as he seems to: off the charts.

Level of surprise: zero.
 
A recent Gallup poll found that only 14 percent of Americans agreed that "humans developed over millions of years" and "God had no part." A Zogby poll this year found that 78 percent of Americans agreed that schoolteachers "should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
Click to expand...

keale said:
Really?.........Really? Thats insane!
Click to expand...

I have no problem with science teachers teaching the scientific evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the evidence, though?
 
When Santorum loses the election, he might want to join that group busy trying to undermine scientific dogma by testing it and attempting to find errors. They call them scientists.
 
Well, it might be interesting to take him at his word on evolution, since he thinks it's so important that students be able to talk about it. Imagine actually doing that in a high school biology class. OK class, on one side we have the fossil record - and on the other Noah's Ark. Debate the scientific plausibility of each scenario ...

I've mixed feelings about this. I keep thinking in regards to Santorum, let his fundamentalist-cum-RC stripes come out. But that's assuming it makes him more marginalized and I realize that's probably not a safe assumption.
 
Minoosh said:
Well, it might be interesting to take him at his word on evolution, since he thinks it's so important that students be able to talk about it. Imagine actually doing that in a high school biology class. OK class, on one side we have the fossil record - and on the other Noah's Ark. Debate the scientific plausibility of each scenario ...
Click to expand...

My concern is that for many people, the Noah's Ark scenario is much more plausible.
 
Meanwhile, the state of Kentucky has passed a bill allowing the "teaching the controversy" nonsense...
None of these idiots understand that if the "controversy" were really addressed properly in class, their cherished Creation would be shown up for the primitive myth it is.
 
I'm still waiting for Little Ricky to propose a reasonable, rational, responsible budget.

I'm still waiting for Little Ricky to assure us that, in the event the interests of the nation point in one direction, but the interests of his money-bag supporters point in the other direction, that he will have the integrity to take the side of the national interest over that of his financial angels.

I'm still waiting for Little Ricky to denounce hypocrisy, excuse-making, double-standards and cronyism in government in general, and in his own administration in particular.

But we never hear this stuff. What we hear from Little Ricky is pile after pile of steaming crap about "social issues," as if the President is supposed to be the social engineer for the USA. Like a bad magician who desperately wants to misdirect the attention of the audience to his left hand so that he can do the secret move with his right, Little Ricky is desperately trying to misdirect his audience's attention to matters that are irrelevant or downright stupid, and away from the things that are important (especially those where Obama seems to be doing a creditable job).
 
A public poorly understanding science (hardly unique for the US) coupled with politicians exploiting it. Can't end well.
 
I'm beginning to think that Santorum is under the impression that scientists just make crap up in a back room. Actually he probably really believes that since that is what religion does and he probably can't conceive that other people think in different ways.
 
Santorum said:
Given this uncertainty, I think most Americans find the experts' cocksureness unsettling. Despite the bravado and billions of dollars in media hype supporting the climate alarmists, only 37 percent of respondents agreed that man is causing global warming in a recent Rasmussen poll.

Why? Well, maybe because Americans don't like being told what to believe. Maybe because we have learned to be skeptical of "scientific" claims, particularly those at war with our common sense - like the Darwinists' telling us for decades that we are just a slightly higher form of life than a bacterium that is here purely by chance, or the Environmental Protection Agency's informing us last week that man-made carbon dioxide - a gas that humans exhale and plants need to live, a gas that represents less than 0.1 percent of the atmosphere - is a dangerous pollutant threatening to overheat the world.
Click to expand...

No, no, no! We were saying that you were a form of life only slightly higher than a bacterium.

I love how he is patting Americans on the back for buying into the distortions the movement he represents have spread.
 
Travis said:
I'm beginning to think that Santorum is under the impression that scientists just make crap up in a back room. Actually he probably really believes that since that is what religion does and he probably can't conceive that other people think in different ways.
Click to expand...

I think he knows good and well how science works; he just pretends not to in order to exploit the ignorance of voters.
 
This is what makes guys like Santorum dangerous. They know just enough to be dangerous.

There is in fact debate over aspects of some widely known and accepted scientific theories. You can a group of knowledgeable people with relevant experience to disagree about details about evolution.

You can get 2 accomplished physicists to debate String Theory vs Infinite Universes.

"Big Bang Theory" is in fact a dismissive term coined by a scientist who didn't buy into "Expanded Universe Theory".

None of this, however, means that you can back door something like Creationism into a scientific discussion. Unless of course, you are discussing what does not qualify as science.

Is there some degree dogma and closed mindedness in the scientific community? Yes. There are lots of egos and money on the line. Some people don't like to find out the ideas that they built a lifetime studying are wrong. But, that has more to do with the failings of individual humans than any sort of organized assaults on a person's faith.
 
angrysoba said:
I have no problem with science teachers teaching the scientific evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the evidence, though?
Click to expand...

Oh.... Maybe you heard of a little thing called a banana.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom