Politics

Science and the GOP

Nov. 23, 2012 10:09am

Don Rasmussen is a writer and a political consultant providing campaign technology and strategic analysis to Constitutional Republican candidates. He earned his BA in Political Economy and Latin America Studies from the University of Washington before moving on to a Masters in Political Management from George Washington University. He has staffed or advised on two presidential campaigns and over a dozen congressional races as well as organizing The Rally for the Republic, the conservative counter-convention to the 2008 Republican National Convention, which helped launch the TEA Party movement. Today he lives in Austin where he is working on his first book, Diaspora: Why We Leave, a study of the economic and political motivations of Americans living abroad.

In the wake of Marco Rubio’s recent interview in which he claimed that the age of the Earth was “a dispute among theologians,” the Republican Party’s science problem has resurfaced as an issue.

According to Rubio, “I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that (the age of the Earth).” By that logic, only a meteorologist can tell it is raining and only a chemist can tell us that the rain is made of water.

The other fallacy propagated by Rubio in that interview is the old canard that evolution is “just a theory.” Gravity is also just a theory. Shall we start pushing politicians out of airplanes to see if it’s a valid theory? The false “just a theory” argument is borne of ignorance of the scientific process. It is easy to confuse the common use of the word “theory” with the exact, specific and verifiably valid scientific process of the same name.

When this confusion forms the premise of your argument, you’ve already lost the argument by revealing your misunderstanding. Yet this premise has persisted in Republican circles for years, along with a host of other false, anti-science “facts” that form the support for some people’s view of politics, apparently including Senator Rubio.

Growing up in small town Texas, I learned that plate tectonics was a hoax, the Earth was only 10,000 years old, there are no transitional fossils, radiocarbon dating is fake and humans were created whole cloth in God’s image.

All of this was years after the US Navy sonar-mapped the oceans, Edwin Hubble observed galaxies flying apart, Penzias &Wilson found the residue radiation from the Big Bang, paleontologists began discovering pre-human hominid fossils along with hundreds of transitional animal forms, geological measures repeatedly validated radiocarbon dating and Watson & Crick cracked the structure of DNA.

It’s especially ironic when these falsehoods are propagated on the internet, a technology based on quantum mechanics, a field of science that confirms much of the scientific understanding of the universe and its origins. It is also the foundational science behind CAT scans and many other modern technologies.

In fact, if you propose that DNA technology is wrong and humans can’t be genetically tracked back to early ape-like species with which we share 90 percent of our DNA, than you must also advocate releasing every murderer and rapist convicted with DNA technology. If one is fake, then so is the other; it’s the same technology.

I don’t write this to disparage anyone’s religious beliefs, only to highlight the fact that when those beliefs bump up against foundational science and proven technology; it is easy to make those beliefs look ridiculous to a majority of Americans.  And so it is with Marco Rubio.

Despite overwhelming belief in God (92 percent according to Gallup), only 40percent of Americans persist in accepting some pre-modern views on the origins of the universe and the human species. That’s far higher than any other developed country except Muslim-dominated Turkey.  The evangelical base of the Republican Party makes up the majority of those holding those views.

Therein lies the political problem. Reporters will continue to ask these sorts of questions for this very reason. Marco Rubio’s awkward pander to the base separates him from the 60 percent and growing portion of the population that doesn’t think Jonah literally lived in a whale or that Noah managed to get to Florida to collect a pair of swamp newts.

Moreover, this basic misunderstanding of science (Marco Rubio is actually on the Science and Space sub-committee) leads to many other misunderstandings that prove politically toxic; “legitimate rape” comes immediately to mind. If you accept a magical, meta-scientific worldview, you can fall for all kinds of quack theories that follow from it and you set yourself up for scandal and mockery when those views are revealed to a skeptical electorate.

Todd Akin didn’t lose because of the TEA party; he beat two TEA party candidates in the primary who split almost 60 percent of the vote. Akin squeaked by holding his 36 percent evangelical base. But his views didn’t sell to a general electorate.  Case after case we see the same thing, media labeled TEA partiers who lost due to their religiously-motivated anti-science views…Angle, Mourdock, Akin, O”Donnell, Buck, the list goes on and on.

For all of the Democrats faults (and they are legion), they have successfully occupied the public space for objective and rational view of the physical world (setting aside climate change “science” which is infused with so much interest group politics and secular religion as to be a wholly separate case).

That leaves the GOP in a tough position representing minority views that seem increasingly at odds with scientific fact and public understanding. It also makes our legitimate criticisms of climate change seem less credible.

Apart from the cultural sensitivities that this raises; it is a political problem for the GOP. It is a political weapon so powerful that it can re-elect written off for dead senator Claire McCaskill and send an Indiana liberal Democrat senator to Washington even as the state votes for Mitt Romney by 11 points over President Obama.

Republican candidates and spokespersons must start responding to these types of questions in a fact-based manner. For every Biblical literalist they anger, there are more voters who will breathe a sigh of relief. Marco Rubio tried to have it both ways and ended up looking clueless and spineless to both sides.

The Republican Party has tried to fence sit on this issue for years, but our constantly improving scientific understanding along with an electorate which is increasingly accepting of the “science-based” view of the world make it a losing bet.  The GOP is in desperate need of a scientific reformation.  It probably starts by putting people on the Senate Science and Space sub-committee who know that the Earth is c. 4.5 billion years old and, just as importantly, why we know that is the case.

Evangelicals are an important and welcomed part of the GOP coalition, but they can’t continue to cost us election after election. If literalist rhetoric is making us politically uncompetitive and undermining our credibility among swing voters and educated suburbanites, then it is better to market to the 60 percent who don’t hold those views.

It’s not a matter of philosophy or ideology; it’s a strategic and practical necessity if we want to govern.  We should never attack people for there views, but the only reason a political party exists is to obtain or retain political power. We must, therefore, not permit those views to dominate and define the party when they are at odds with our strategic and tactical objectives.

 

Comments (287)

1 2 3 4 5
  • MicahJank
    Nov. 25, 2012 at 1:39am

    This article is so full of straw-man fallacies that its hard to even know where to begin.

    Report this comment

    MicahJank  
  • AnimalsAsLeaders
    Nov. 25, 2012 at 1:23am

    Great article, probably one of the best I’ve ever read on the Blaze.

    Report this comment

    AnimalsAsLeaders  
  • TONY BOLOGNA
    Nov. 25, 2012 at 1:10am

    Holy C rap, I think that I have actually read an article that was written by a Republican regarding science, that I actually think is accurate…. is this some sort of trick or something? It’s not April first, so this can’t be an April Fools prank…. OK, time to stop having fun and lets get into some scientific “debate” or something….

    According to RIGHTWINGER261 — and I am not quoting but am paraphrasing here – NO scientist has ever created organic life from inorganic matter. RWINGER261 like many many GOPers, take the Bible literally instead of taking it for what it really is, which is a collection of stories, some true, some are parables. Many GOPers believe that the Earth is not older than 9,000 years; that a real man named Noah saved EVERY single species of plant and animal that we witness today; Methuselah lived to be 969 years old?? REALLY? Adam, from the Adam and Eve story lived to be 930 years old??? REALLY?? Enoch lived to be 365 years old?? Wow, these people must have had good genes and exercised a lot!!

    – If creating organic life as we know it from inorganic matter was easy, everybody would be doing it….
    But, seriously, scientists have come a long way in understanding how the approximately 4.5 billion year old Earth (roughly the age of our Milky Way Galaxy, while other parts of the universe are estimated at 11 to 13 billion years old) and its “primordial soup” could create amino acids and peptides and proteins and other building blocks of life..

    Report this comment

    TONY BOLOGNA  
  • whater39
    Nov. 25, 2012 at 12:08am

    Sceince will set you free. The great thing about science is…. not everything is discovered yet. And some things are disproven. But here is the difference between science & religon. Reglisous people refuse to re-analize anything. Why sceince will look at the facts again, and come to maybe a different conclusion based on those facts.

    The voters spoke very clearly this election. And the GOP will fail again if they don’t look at the facts, and come to a different conclusion based on those facts.

    Report this comment

    whater39  
  • sw12
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 11:59pm

    Lets take a little at a time

    2 Peter 3:5 They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word

    This is saying GOD spoke the the heavens and earth in to existence. Meaning 6 days

    This is saying that he flooded the earth

    2 Peter 3:6 Then he used the water to destroy the ancient world with a mighty flood

    Now lets look at 2 Peter 3:5 again – They deliberately forget

    The lord says anyone who doesn’t believe in creation or the flood is deliberately lying to themselves.

    Report this comment

    sw12  
  • rickbob
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 10:39pm

    I am amused at Mr Rasmussen’s comparison between the theory of evolution and “theory” of gravity. By definition, a theory cannot be proven. Mr R, there is no question that gravity exists. There has never been shown where one species “evolves” into another. Darwin’s finches shown excellent examples of “adaptation”.

    As to the creation of the earth – I have read a couple of scriptural scholars who say that the term “day” used in the story of the creation can be properly translated into “creative period” which is not defined. Therefore, one “creative period” could have been a thousand years; another could have been ten million years. Another explanation is that this earth was organized from the “leftovers” of other of God’s creations. So some things found in the earth could be hundreds of millions years old.

    YAWN! Who really cares?? What does knowing how old the earth is help in one’s salvation??

    Report this comment

    rickbob  
  • CFarmerLady
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 9:24pm

    It really surprises me that this reporter can so blatantly get away with calling at least half the country stupid. My father once told me, “Bright people are a dime a dozen. They just don’t choose to use their intelligence.” And I think that this, and not his insulting rhetoric, explains the GOP’s problems.

    Report this comment

    CFarmerLady  
  • CFarmerLady
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 6:51pm

    The laws of bio-genesis and causality are pretty thoroughly accepted. You can’t get something from nothing, and life reproduces after it’s own kind. These are laws of SCIENCE, and something that evolutionists like to forget.

    Also, the great majority of the planet once believed that said planet was flat. The majority does not always indicate the reality.

    Report this comment

    CFarmerLady  
  • Miwingman
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 6:12pm

    When are anti-science Democrats going to admit the following scientific facts:

    1. Life begins at conception; pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus.
    2. No one is born gay. This was reported by the leading scientists of the Human Genome project almost 20 years ago.

    This translates to two questions for Democrat candidates:

    When does life begin?
    Are people born gay?

    Report this comment

    Miwingman  
    • whater39
      Nov. 25, 2012 at 12:32am

      I guess Life does begin at conception. I guess techincally it’s murder. But everyone is mortal, we all must die. However… It’s someone else’s life, and it’s their choice if they want to have an abortion or not. If someone is really worried about people dying. Then they should want less military spending, less war on drugs. And more $ for medical research.

      Gay. It doesn’t matter when/how someone became gay. The fact is they are gay. And they have the exact same rights as everyone else. So if they want to have children or adopt or get married. It’s their life.

      If find it odd, that most Right wing people want small government. Then want the government to get invovled in people’s lives with abortion & gay marrige. Kinda contradicting

      Report this comment

      whater39  
    • Miwingman
      Nov. 25, 2012 at 9:58am

      @whater39 Gay doesn’t matter although every state constitution needs to be changed and over 17,000 federal laws that reference “married” would be changed from their original meaning. But that doesn’t matter.

      What matters is the age of the earth because that is something everyone deals with everyday. That is a game changer.

      How about we just go with scientific fact? Forget about what is convenient.

      Report this comment

      Miwingman  
    • Miwingman
      Nov. 25, 2012 at 10:05am

      @whater39 785,000 murders just last year and you just look the other way. It is the gay community that wants the state involved in their relationship by wanting to get “married”. You should ask them the same question.

      BTW what exactly do you hate that starts with a “w”?

      Report this comment

      Miwingman  
  • JediKnight
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 5:48pm

    Really Blaze? This is why the GOP lost? Take a look around at the electorate. The GOP lost precisely for why Romney said, the Dems are giving people everything. You cannot compete with Santa Claus. If the choice is someone that’s going to give you everything for free and doing everything yourself, people are going to take everything for free.

    The GOP didn’t lose because they can’t answer questions like this. Hell, I don’t think I could answer a question like this if I wanted to. The “age of the earth” has been changed plenty of times in just the last 30 years. If I said “10,000 years old” the media would point and laugh (and I wouldn’t care). If I said “Billions of years old” then the media would say nothing. Either answer does not affect ones ability to govern or write laws.

    Report this comment

    JediKnight  
  • txannie
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 4:44pm

    I don’t care where this guy was raised in Texas, I was too, and I was taught God and science goes hand in hand. Don’t blame God for narrow-mindedness.

    Report this comment

    txannie  
  • Southernsoul
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:49pm

    RWINGER, are you on drugs? God left a written record for his creatures? You must have some connections, cause the Bible I read was printed in 1995, in Philadelphia by people. And historically accurate? Where do I begin? Other than vague generalities, not even close.

    Report this comment

    Southernsoul  
  • puravida56
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:05pm

    For all of the Democrats faults (and they are legion), they have successfully occupied the public space for objective and rational view of the physical world (setting aside climate change “science” which is infused with so much interest group politics and secular religion as to be a wholly separate case).

    That leaves the GOP in a tough position representing minority views that seem increasingly at odds with scientific fact and public understanding. It also makes our legitimate criticisms of climate change seem less credible.

    That was the best part of the article.

    Report this comment

    puravida56  
  • taksavillage2
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 1:09pm

    Does Rasmussen realize that he sounds like a babbling idiot in his second paragraph comparing situations that can be seen & experienced in real time vs a situation that has to be extrapolated based on second-hand information ????

    The Grand Canyon has more of the characteristics of a “wash-out” flash flood than it does of a gradual river erosion over a few millennium.

    Why is the rate of expansion from the “Big Bang” increasing instead of decreasing, genius?

    Can we equate the “I AM” with the intelligence and capabilities of an amoeba????

    BOY, DO YOU SOUND SMART! Maybe you should leave thought to those who can

    Report this comment

    taksavillage2  
    • TONY BOLOGNA
      Nov. 25, 2012 at 1:48am

      @ TakesaVillage2 – My guess is that you should leave the geology of the Grand Canyon to the geologists (like myself, with a Master of Science degree in Geology from a top US university) instead of speculating yourself…. or else please educate yourself by using peer-reviewed research and/or books.

      For example, you said, and I quote -”"The Grand Canyon has more of the characteristics of a “wash-out” flash flood than it does of a gradual river erosion over a few millennium.”"

      Based on your statement here, I don’t know where to begin, but I’ll try. First of all, the Grand Canyon does NOT show more characteristics of a “wash-out” flash flood, then (you should not use “than” here as you did) it does of a gradual river erosion over a few millennium. At least part of this statement is accurate. The Grand Canyon did not form over a few millennium as you speculated. A few millennium is only a few thousand years, and the Grand Canyon formed over millions of years, not thousands!

      I do not have enough space to go into great detail here, but here are some key events to study (and please, don’t use Wikipedia, check out peer-reviewed sources which are the most accurate):

      +Based on what geologists now know, the Grand Canyon likely started forming between 75 and 80 million years ago;
      +Laramide Orogeny;
      +Colorado Plateau uplift;
      +Formation of Basin and Range Province;
      +Roughly 40 unique sedimentary rock sequences with alternating rocks forming in shallow sea env

      Report this comment

      TONY BOLOGNA  
  • Eddyboy
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 1:06pm

    Even Darwin acknowledge that evolution is a theory. Whether or not it’s an absolute established fact is quite irrelevant. Theory is a story that fits and explains most of the observable and verifiable facts. It’s a way of cataloging and organizing those things we do know or are pretty sure of. The biggest hole in the theory of evolution is the lack of a fossil record of many transitional species. Doesn’t mean it’s true or untrue, but it’s hole.

    The 9000 year old earth “theory” is no theory at all. At very best it may describe the sojourn of Man on earth in the form we take today. The folks in that wish to make it a 9000 or 6000 year old earth are taking bits of the bible and extrapolating it in simplistic ways. “days” as expressed in Genesis could as easily be metaphors for epochs. ..which would in many ways align the bible with the fossil record. As long as we obsess about knowing the unknowable, the stupider we appear.

    Report this comment

    Eddyboy  
  • SPIN_MD
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 12:47pm

    When you try to argue evolutionist you will lose the same way you will lose when arguing with a Muslim. Evolutionism is a religion. The followers are as fanatical and unyielding as any Muslim jihadist. Think about it as a Christian. Christians don’t have to prove anything. We just have to believe and have faith. Faith is the proof. Evolutionists on the other hand are working from a broken premise penned by a man over 150 years ago. He espoused this theory without the knowledge we currently have. Had he know the complexity of the cell, he probably would have had a second thought about such a simplistic view of nature.

    Evolutionism is the religion of man as god. When one thinks about it it is silly. Man is at the top of the food chain for one reason alone. It isn’t because we are the strongest of the animal kingdom. We are quite weak comparatively. It isn’t because we are the most adaptable of the animal kingdom. Actually in the natural state humans are quite unable to adapt. It isn’t because we are the best providers of the animal kingdom. It is because we have the ability to produce technology.

    When the technology fails we are at the mercy of nature just as every other creature. In any given context we go from being at the top of the food chain to somewhere in the middle. In some instances we go much lower, like, say, the ocean or the arctic or the tropical rainforest.

    Evolution is not science it is a religion disguised as science.

    Report this comment

    SPIN_MD  
    • puravida56
      Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:08pm

      The process of evolution is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is impossible to prove but has a lot of evidence to support it.

      The great thing about science is that it is always trying to prove itself wrong (except for global warming). Wouldn’t it be great if religion did that?

      Report this comment

      puravida56  
    • SPIN_MD
      Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:59pm

      @ puravida56

      Adaptation, not evolution, is an observable phenomenon, given an adequate timetable. Evolution in actuality has very little hard data to support the theory. There are volumes of conjecture to support it however.

      Evolution “science” has changed and adapted and backtracked and even broken cardinal laws of scientific procedure to “prove” it as “factual”. Science as a whole is moderately effective in proving how something works. It is very ineffective as to proving why something works the way it does.

      Religion is a matter of faith in something beyond the seen. True faith is proven every day. Outside of the purview of an existing sovereign being, the results are purely subjective. Christians believe that murder, theft, lying and jealousy are bad things. Muslims believe those same things are not only good but required of the faithful. Billions of people on either side believe their way is proof of their belief system.

      Report this comment

      SPIN_MD  
  • rdk
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 12:19pm

    Evangelicals are really nice people with serious deficits in their reading comprehension.

    Report this comment

    rdk  
  • Mr_Meaner
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 12:10pm

    This pinhead illustrates one of the reasons I have grown to hate the GOP establishment as much as the liars and fools who make up the democrat party
    These people think they are just so brilliant, we’re not to question the validity of their beliefs. I mean…they CAN’T be wrong. Their self-perceived mental superiority just doesn’t allow it..but look how quick they are to blame the beliefs of others for their own failures.
    The problem is these “consultants” are insulated from reality, and only socialize in circles of people who are, in most cases, the most stupid among us.
    See, Don believes what he believes despite the evidence…He can’t explain how a long succession of random DNA mutations can POSSIBLY create a beneficial change in a species. He’s just too dense to realize that the process he describes is how we develop DEFECTS. His thinking is so corrupt and convoluted, he actually believes that a long procession of wrongs (random DNA mutations, or defects) can make a right.(advancement of species)
    His problem is that HIS faith can’t stand up to ACTUAL scientific scrutiny, and he’s too stupid to realize it (or maybe he’s just too lazy to actually try to understand cellular biology)
    It isn’t necessarily his stupidity that should make him an outcast, it’s his arrogance, and his condescending attitude toward the people who provide him with a living

    Report this comment

    Mr_Meaner  
  • mr.goodvibe
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 10:49am

    Yhe point seems to be missed here, if the reporter is obviously trying to paint Rubio as an idiot for having religious views. BTW Evolution is a theory as it can not not be proven with scientific method in a short period of time since it was devised, it makes sense that species adapt to their surrounding enviroment, as for the Bible, based on dating the civilizations back to the first texts included in the bible, theologians date them back to 6,000 to 10,000 or so years ago and so if that is true they somehow think that is when the earth was created because of the creation stories. This may be when civilization started to record in written form but even Genesis says that the earth was void but did not say when the heavens and earth were created. Another caviat is our perception of God, we see him as a omnipotent spritual being, but if we look at the origins of the book of Genesis, growing up, my preist told me this, that the book of Genesis was taken in large part from the Akkaddian texts which we now learned were heavily borrowed from Sumeria. So if we read translations of the Sumerian epic of creation the whole story makes much more sense scientifically, try reading Genesis Revisited, if nothing else it is an interesting read and is very informative biblicaly and scientificly.

    Report this comment

    mr.goodvibe  
  • michael from Ga.
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 10:41am

    Science supports Creationism; and the fact that the earth is millions of yrs. old. The problem? Agenda. People who have never read the True Word [including religious folk], or those that can Not pronounce Hypothesis should not be teaching this class, in either party. The Congress should focus on Representation, period. The Man Adam was Not the first man on the earth, in this age[2nd.earth age].

    Report this comment

    michael from Ga.  
  • AtlasA
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 10:34am

    Creationism does not discount the science at all.
    If you read Genesis you will understand the point of view of Genesis is not of the Universe being made but life being created on earth. It talks about God floating on the water while the earth is still covered check the 1st verse out some time.
    On Day in Genesis: The ancient Hebrew word for day. (Genesis is originally written in Hebrew btw folks) Does not just mean 24 hour day it has two other meanings. One of the other meanings for day is to designate a very long period of time. IF you look at Genesis from the stand point of it talks about when God made life on earth and then each day represents a new phase of that life on earth. The Book of Genesis actually starts to line up very nicely with the known science of the earth.
    I could also go on for days how the dna evidence choose man kind to be a very young species that if you actually look at the human genome projects collection of error a mutations to are dna compared to other species you will find that are dna would have made are race extinct long time ago if the dna for Humans came about through natural evolution over a long period of time. Most science actually supports the idea that humans just entered the Fossil record at a specific relative recent point in time.
    If you want to argue with me over the Scence vs Theology or the Creation theory. Don’t bother just do your own research.
    Google search the Meaning of the Ancient Hebrew word for Day. The word used f

    Report this comment

    AtlasA  
    • AtlasA
      Nov. 24, 2012 at 10:36am

      Got cut of by the limiter:
      Google search the Meaning of the Ancient Hebrew word for Day. The word used for day is “yom” btw
      Then search for a copy of Science and Human Origins and you will manage to get most the information I posted in here about dna evidence and then some.
      You can then read and research yourself around the information and draw your own conclusion like the scientific method says you’re supposed to do.
      For the record their is more information out there about this I just can list it all here if you really care to disprove me or learn more about what I am talking about go look it up. Most of it is online now and you can even find will scientific sourced information alongside it.

      Report this comment

      AtlasA  
  • Catzilla23
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 9:45am

    Philosophy is questions that have no answers. Theology is answers that can’t be questioned.

    Report this comment

    Catzilla23  
  • Marsh626
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 9:33am

    A few points.

    - Republicans aren’t “anti-science”. Way to accept Leftist rhetoric and talking points like a mindless moron. Some fundamentalist Christian Republicans choose not to believe in several scientfic theories that challenge the dignity and divinity of Mankind. That’s a lot different than waging some kind of modern day inquisition against scientists who oppose their literal interpretation of the Bible. And I don’t blame.

    What does evolutionary biology and astronomy tell us? That the Universe somehow spontaneously created itself out of pure nothingness (without the aid of God), that heavier and heavier elements were created in stars and spread throighout the Universe through supernovas, that those stars and heavy elements created billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, that planets former around those stars, that life arose on this planet purely by chance, that it eventually evolved into Mankind 3+ billion years later and Man is little more than apes in suits.

    Frankly, I find that depressing. What’s the point of life other reproducing like animals? What’s the point of morality other than some kind of fuzzy evolutionary advantage?

    I don’t blame people for choosing to believe that we were instead created by a loving God in His image.

    Rather than being embarrassed by these kinds of simple but happy and moral people, I envy them.

    Report this comment

    Marsh626  
    • Marsh626
      Nov. 24, 2012 at 9:51am

      - Conservatives and “liberals” are both “anti-science” on issues that challenge their value systems, religion and worldview.

      Take the science of human biodiversity for example which proves that not all races are equally intelligent and civilized. Suddenly one finds the Left shrieking “It’s just a theory!” when race and IQ statistics are brought up.

      The Left not only rejects objective and peer reviewed scientific data that proves that not all races are equally intelligent and civilized, but they ruthlessly persecute anyone who dares to suggest such an ugly and politically incorrect idea (James D. Watson comes immediately to mind) because it’s a direct threat to their entire Marxist and anti-White paradigm on the causes of racial inequality. Yet I don’t see douchebag a-hole conservatives like yourself taking the Left to task for their own form of anti-science “Liberal Creationism”…

      - If you honestly think that we’ll suddenly start winning elections if most Republicans start hanging up posters of Charles Darwin in their bedrooms, then you’re a delusional idiot.

      The real reason the Republican Party is losing is because of racial demographics and because the Left controls the media, academia and the entertainment industry with an iron fist. And I’m sure Republican derpers like yourself fully support increasing mass non-White immigration like a complete fool.

      I have no problem with more conservatives embracing science. But it’s not our key to victo

      Report this comment

      Marsh626  
  • Pantloadian
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 9:06am

    “Jesus rode dinosaurs” – Marco Rubio

    Report this comment

    Pantloadian  
  • Oldphoto678
    Nov. 24, 2012 at 8:50am

    The extremists on both sides should be shunned. The overwhelming majority of Americans are not far from center. Why do we even concider the the far right or lefts views? We don’t need to. We at the center are the majority. Like I said shunn the extremists on both sides and fix the country.

    Report this comment

    Oldphoto678  
    • flipper1073
      Nov. 24, 2012 at 9:35am

      @OLDPHOTO
      You Couldn’t be more Wrong
      The Majority of Americans are NOT
      Center/Moderates That part of the Electorate
      makes Up 10% or less.
      Mitt Romney was a Moderate an Lost
      Because the Conservative Base was not Energized.
      (Well that an Massive Voter Fraud in highly Populated
      Cities in Swing States)
      The Majority of Americans are Conservative an couldn’t
      Care Less about the GOP Elites or the Democrats.
      Both Seem to be headed down the PROGRESSIVE
      Path to Socialism just at Different Speeds.

      Report this comment

      flipper1073  
1 2 3 4 5

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

TheBlaze

Channel Finder

Find TheBlaze on your TV

This zipcode is invalid, please try again

Channel Finder

TheBlaze is available on channel .

Spread the word!

If you can't find TheBlaze, please call to upgrade your package

Channel Finder

Unfortunately, TheBlaze is not available on .

But you can help! Call at or press CONTINUE to email your provider and urge them to add TheBlaze to your channel lineup.

But you can help! Press CONTINUE to email your provider and urge them to add TheBlaze to your channel lineup.

Continue

Request TheBlaze

Please complete the form

I would like to receive news and information from TheBlaze.
Skip

Thank you for supporting TheBlaze

Interested in doing more? Spread the word about TheBlaze to your friends and family.

Spread the word!

TheBlaze Magazine
Restoring Love