Study Finds Conservatives’ Trust in Science at Record Low: Do You Agree With Its Reasoning?
- Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:00pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
A new review of data collected from 1974 to 2010 has found that public perception of science and trust in its findings has drastically fallen for those who consider themselves politically conservative.
(Related: New poll claims belief in global warming is rising…but that’s not the whole story)
Gordon Gauchat, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who reviewed the data from the General Social Survey, found that conservatives have had the most variation in trust of scientific data, while moderates and liberals have remained constant in their confidence levels.
It wasn’t always this way for conservatives. In 1974, 48 percent of conservatives reported having “a great deal of trust in science.” At this time, Gauchat states in the report conservatives had the “highest trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates.” The decline from there was gradual, according to Gauchat. By 2010, only 35 percent of conservatives reported having “a great deal of trust in science.”
(Image: Gordon Gauchat/American Sociological Review)
But why? Gauchat puts forward three hypotheses but one he believes is the primary cause for the steady decline:
The cultural ascendency thesis predicts a uniform increase in public trust in science across all social groups. In other words, the special congruence of science and modern institutions increases the need for scientific knowledge and public education, which, in turn, encourages public trust in science. By contrast, scholars have predicted a uniform decline in public trust across all social groups, or the alienation thesis. This decline in public trust is associated with a cultural backlash against technocratic authority and science’s inability to defend itself against its own standards in public discourse. Finally, the politicization thesis predicts that ideological conservatives will experience group-specific declines in trust in science over time. Conservatives’ distrust is attributable to the political philosophy and intellectual culture accompanying the NR [new right] and the increased connection between scientific knowledge and regulatory regimes in the United States, the latter of which conservatives generally oppose.
It is on politicization of science — not by the left but by the right — that Gauchat would place his bet, based on the data he analyzed. Gauchat also notes that a lack of education isn’t the reason; he writes that “well-educated conservatives uniquely experience a decline in trust.” Live Science explains further how Gauchat thinks we may have come to this position:
Research used to be done under the auspices of NASA and the Department of Defense, Gaulet said. Both of these agencies seemed far-removed from daily life. However, over the decades, science has become more intertwined with everyday policy. The Environmental Protection Agency is a “poster child” for science informing real-world regulation that some conservatives oppose, Gaulet said.
“It’s almost a contradiction,” he said. “We use science because it has this objective point of view or credibility to figure out which policy to use … but by doing that it becomes politicized.”
Gauchat conducted this review of survey data to test claims made in Chris Mooney’s 2005 book “The Republican War on Science,” specifically that the rise of the NR (new right) is involved. The NR is described as promoting “limited government, strong national defense, and protection of traditional values against what they view as encroachments of a permissive and often chaotic modern society.” This group, according to Mooney and others, gained more political power in the Reagan-era. Two key groups pointed out by Gauchat within the NR includes the “religious right and transnational corporations.”
Gauchat, in an interview with U.S. News, went further to attribute the decline confidence to conservative media and think tanks:
“It kind of began with the loss of Barry Goldwater and the construction of Fox News and all these [conservative] think tanks. The perception among conservatives is that they’re at a disadvantage, a minority,” he says. “It‘s not surprising that the conservative subculture would challenge what’s viewed as the dominant knowledge production groups in society — science and the media.”
GBTV’s S.E. Cupp weighed in on the issue on MSNBC’s Now With Alex Wagner (via Mediaite) where she agreed politicization is what may be causing distrust in science. Cupp attributes the politicization to the left and the right to “corrupting science.” Fellow panelist on the show Ari Melber disagreed saying it was not politicization but religious conflict with science. Watch the clip:
The GSS was conducted every year from 1974 to 1994, then every other year from 1994 to 2010. It should be noted that Gauchat has said there are “numerous limitations” associated with this study. He says based on previous studies, it is unlikely the public has a uniform definition of “what science is” and therefore it can be difficult to truly assess the general atmosphere of confidence surrounding the field.
This study was published in the American Sociological Review.
Let us know what you think of the reasoning provided for the decline of Conservatives’ trust in science by taking our poll and providing your reasoning in the comments section.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 586 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 370 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 370 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (371)
yokel32
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:34pmThe next time you people go to a doctor, if you’re lucky enough to be able to afford health insurance, ask him/her if they believe in evolution. If they says no, you should probably find another doctor. Evolution is the heart of the science of biology. It has been proven over and over again through DNA analysis. It is not junk science.
Geologic time is a reality. The same science that allowed us to develop atomic weapons allows to determine the age of a rock. It’s called radioactive decay. It is not junk science.
Climate science is not junk science. If you heat a beaker of CO2 vs a beaker of pure oxygen, the CO2 will heat faster. The more CO2 we have in our atmosphere, the warmer the climate is. This is not junk science and 90% of scientists today believe in these theories. They believe them because they have been proven to be true.
TheObamanation
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:55pmTheory is the operative word …
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:59pmThe earth is not a beaker, gases break down and dissipate. and heat rises. The Earth has been warming since the last ice age. The more ice melts, the warmer the climate will become, at a faster rate. This has been happening since before human beings.
Report Post »raiderglenn
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:00pmYou are the reason that more people DON’T trust science. You twist facts to fit your agenda.
Here is the breakdown of our atmosphere: •Nitrogen (N2) 78%,Oxygen (O2) 21% Argon (Ar) 0.9% Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.04 %, Other gas 0.06%
If you take a beaker of that and a beaker with 0.4% CO2 (thats TEN TIMES the current amout) would the 2nd one heat faster? would it even be noticable with such a overall small change in the makeup? would doing it with 4.0% CO2 even make a difference? That is ONE HUNDRED TIMES more CO2!
The answer your looking for is NO! it would not! And has been tried and DID NOT!
NEXT!
Report Post »junior1971
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:01pmPerhaps we should force that volcano in Iceland to pay a carbon tax. It was so big it blanketed most of the European continent. Hell, based on the amount of carbon and various other potentially toxic particles it spewed into the atmosphere, that volcano should be forced to pay the worlds national debt. What a injustice!
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:01pmNo true conservative disbelieves the principle of evolution. Your accusation mis-characterizes conservative thought, and is thus left empty. It’s the application of the principle beyond its rationally proven and data-supported bounds that conservatives object to. All true scientists recognize that the question of the origin of the species has competing theories which have not yet settled into scientific law, and that the theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of species contains flaws and problems.
Report Post »As to global warming: again, tell the truth about conservative thought before attacking it or you’ll miss your mark. No true conservative disputes the settled facts on CO2 as a warmer. We dispute the accuracy of the record (the data compilers admit to cheating), the accuracy of the computer models (they don’t take H2O vapor into account, which is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2, but ISN‘T increasing due to man’s consumption of energy, so it doesn’t play to their POLITICAL solution proposals), and the money trail involved (scientists who are curious to find out if global warming ISN’T man-made don’t get their questions funded). And all that’s before we make you admit that 90% of your 90% of scientists are NOT CLIMATE scientists (some are SOCIAL scientists, for heaven’s sake).
p.s. why would you use pure O2? Our atmosphere is not MADE of pure O2. It’s mostly N2! Get informed! You’ll turn conservative, I promise!
Miami
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:04pmIf by science they mean socialist propaganda, no I don’t.
If you are talking experiment based, truth seeking science, I’m all onboard.
As a mechanical engineer, I trust in science, I have to, it’s the only way to seek answers. Unfortunately many of these so called “scientist” who follow a grant based science, that being the science that will please the purse strings, and that is no science…!
Report Post »maccow
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:07pmHow sad you are. You disqualify your own statements but are too blinded by ideology to realize it. First; once a theory is “proven true” it becomes a natural law like the LAW of gravity. Man made global warming is and will always be a theory and also a political ideology. Second; the 90% of scientists that BELIEVE, even if true which you can’t prove, does not make a theory true. Science is not a majority rule proposition. Look at a fifty year old physics text book and you will find that the majority of what was believed to be true then has been replaced by better models and rationales.
If your going to bring your liberal scientology here, I suggest you raise your rhetorical standards a bit.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:07pmstupid post. my doctor is a christian jew like me who believes in creationism. my sons doctor is a former muslim now christian who always believed in creationism. evolution of cells and mutating viruses have not a thing to do with the founding blocks of our creation by God they just prove the earth and all matter is in motion and constantly changing. I do not trust yahoo’s who believe in false science. the basis of science is to question everything not to bob head in agreement with weak minded arguments for evolution without studying for themselves.
Report Post »Just_Us
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:12pmIt’s called the THEORY of evolution for a reason…..theory does not equal fact. So your argument is logically flawed based on a premise you hold out to be a fact when in reality, it’s just your theory that you hold to.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:13pmyou ignore the variable green-house gas – WATER . it varies from 0% to 4% absolute percentage. carbon dioxide is plant food, so how much increased plant production is there?
My difficulty with what policy makers do with science is they have expectations fund for those expectations, and then say AHA! this must be true. I have serious doubts as to how mush humans have contributed to the change in the global climate.
Report Post »TROONORTH
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:22pmYOKEL32 is on to something. We have been beaten over the head for years with the”90% of scientists agree with the science behind global warming” when it is so obviously, demonstrably wrong. Is there really any wonder why people have begun to distrust these so called scientists?
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:33pmhttp://www.discovery.org/a/6401
…
Keep in mind not to mix up theory with an hypothesis… Theory has several meanings there is a generic meaning and a scientific definition and people get them mixed up in writing both as laymen and even some scientists!
That is to say some use the word theory when they really should use hypothesis or conjecture
Report Post »CptStubbing
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:36pmMaybe we should do a study with Liberals and ask them if they believe the science that says life begins at conception? The results would show liberals not believing a whole lot in science either.
Report Post »Ballot_Box_Revolution
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:36pmi lost trust in science, when i started to understand that most people are sheep, and the government realizes this and will use science to push an agenda….Scientists are only people, and it is easy to get people to sell out.
Why should i trust organized science? Funny thing is that i am very much into science, and think science is very cool. I would trust the garage scientist over the university scientist any day. Organized science has made thing over complicated, for what ever reasons…Most of it is based on getting people to fear life in general…again for what ever reasons……Organized science is just like everything else that is organized…..CORRUPT!!
After realizing that the American government would use science against it’s own people….That is when I lost trust….
Report Post »TESLA
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:37pmMICRO EVOLUTION has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. MACRO EVOLUTION, on the other hand, has quite a ways to go before we label it a fact and is barely within the realm of theory due to such slender evidence.
Report Post »symphonic
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:40pmWhy don’t you go get a SCIENCE DEGREE like I have, and then you can lecture me about science. I did the time. I asked the questions. I saw the science and the logic, and most of it I accepted, but what I learned the most is that there are SO MANY unanswered questions in all of their theories. Theories that seem to make sense and work consistently in experiments, but they still DON’T KNOW what an electron looks like, or a proton, or a neutron, etc. SO much mystery still.
Back when they thought the earth was FLAT, those scientists who knew that theory so well, the ocean still worked and boats still floated. They just were cautious not to go to the “edge” of the earth.
What it really is, are dumb humans acting things out on God’s Earth, and God has it all under control. It did not blow up and become an earth. Man did not descend from apes and goo. God placed man and woman on the earth and started the population with Adam and Eve’s first born children, the way God designed it. The way He created it. That’s the only thing that makes SENSE to me, a learned scientist.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:43pmDuring the Permian age much of what was then a different North America, was covered by a rain forest.
Report Post »Yes, the Earth has been in a constant fluctuation of heating and cooling. As a conservative, I believe in climate change, but to make the jump to say it is mans doing, is frankly ridiculous.
maccow
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:49pm@Symphonic
Report Post »Thank you.
What you said is Perfectly REASONABLE.
JGraham III
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:51pmFor what it is worth, I hold degrees in Zoology and Theology and being reasonably familiar with the so called diciplines involved in both, I have to say that there really isn’t any conflict between the two. The conflict arrises when one seeks to trump the validity of the other. Since I believe what God says in the Bible I also believe that God is the author of the laws that govern the natural realms as well. The problems I have with so called science and the zealots found in the hallowed halls of Academia is their relentless effort to negate or deny the existence of the Creator. And, since He hasn’t personally revealed to them “how He did it”, they want to say He isn’t even there… Likewise the dogmatic religionists that want to hold to many of the fanciful tales told in Sunday school don’t want to reconsider that many of their views of the Bible may not be quite accurate either. The balance as always is somewhere in between. Much of the inner workings of the Creation are on what I call a “need to know” basis. The Bible declares to us that God has given to us “all things that pertain to life and godliness”; we can be assured that He has told us what we need to know. All that remains is finding it. Science is as dogmatic as the religionists because they will not reconsider some of their favorite fairy tales as well. Evolution and the modern view of geology are pretty sketchy in the basis of truth, just as believing that a snake gave Eve an apple.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:54pmSymphonic the scientific community didn’t think the world was flat… Neither did Columbus that’s a myth originally perpetuated by progressive Washington Irving in his history of the world… It was an attack on Christians, particularly Catholics as they had the power at the time to make them look stupid…
Report Post »yokel32
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:57pmTheory is a hypothesis that’s been tested and CONFIRMED.
Report Post »yokel32
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:58pmWhere do I begin to respond?
Report Post »Let’s start with why science is important. America has been the most productive, and therefore wealthiest, nation to have ever existed on earth. This is entirely due to the fact that we have trusted in science to help us learn about the world around us. Televisions, microwaves, refrigerators, and cell phones all exist because of SCIENCE.
Science helps us to be more and more productive and therefore wealthy. It does this because it is the best way to learn the truth about the world around us. America is “in decline” now because of this mistrust in science. When we stop trusting what allows us to produce innovative technologies, we will stop being capable of producing them. STOP TEACHING YOUR KIDS THAT SCIENTISTS DON”T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU’RE KILLING OUR ABILITY TO COMPETE.
Next topic: How science works. Scientists observe the natural world, make hypothesis on why things work the way they do, and conduct tests to confirm or refute their hypothesis. Once their test has been CONFIRMED, it becomes a THEORY. This is a very different definition from the popular definition. Similar to how beat has two meanings. (I beat my daughters boyfriend vs. I danced to the beat even though my parents think dancing is of the devil)
And I understand the beaker experiment is very simplified, but the basics of the idea are very sound. The earth’s climate history is something that can be tested and learned about.
IAMINFIDEL
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:03pmGranted, but CO2 comprised only 0.038% (380 ppm) of the atmosphere which makes me very skeptical of any claim that CO2 has a material impact on climate. Plant food, yes.
To compare Earth to Mars and Venus in regards to atmospheric CO2. The CO2 comprises 90% of Venus’ atmosphere and Venus is a planetary HELL. What little atmosphere Mars has is nearly all CO2, but its so thin that it cannot retain solar heat.
Report Post »maccow
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:03pm@Sacredhonor
Report Post »Okay, change flat earth to the sun revolving around the earth if you like. Symphonics point is still valid.
Tractorboy
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:18pmYokel, which scientist am I suppose to believe more, the ones from the 70′s who said we are going into a ice age? or the ones now. Or which doctor’s/ scientist am I suppose to believe, the ones who say eggs, coffee, bran, salt, mercury, etc. are bad, oh I mean good. Seems the jokes on you. By the way, what do you call that area that surrounds the universe?
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:21pmYokel32…sorry but science has NO agenda …and I go to my traditional di da nv wi s gi…evolution is not a fact but a THEORY..which means it FAILS the science FACT test…you go to your doctor of synthetics and get a symptom fixed..I’ll go to my healer and get the cure for the illness..wa do
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:26pmThen you have the new drug that prevents racist thoughts, eggs are bad for you, vaccines cause autism and heaven only knows how many other pseudo scientific “discoveries” that have made us all a little leery about trusting the scientific community. Don’t blame the conservatives when the scientists are responsible for their own downfall in society.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:28pm@YOKEL32
Sorry, we do not owe science and medicine to evolution – your logic is wrong and fails.
You, the media and yes scientists are the reason science is less respected. As a scientist and an engineer, I laugh when a “scientist” says there is 100% chance that there is life on a planet that he cannot see and cannot gather real data from.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/30/100-percent-chance-for-life-on-newly-found-planet/
CNN reported this story and the scientist said it. You don’t have to be a genius to know this “scientist” is full of crap or why scientists have lost credibility.
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:31pmYokel32..you state “Theory is a hypothesis that’s been tested and CONFIRMED.”
Where to even begin here…how about 5th science…A HYPOTHESIS is an educated GUESS..it can be disproven but NOT proven
Theory..a SUMMARY of Hypothesis that has been supported by repeated tests as long as there is NO evidence to dispute the hypothesis.
Evolution and Global Warming FAIL!!! This is basic 5th grade science.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:39pm@Yokel : You pretend to pay close attention to language, but it is YOU who are dealing in concept confusion. Theories are composed of confirmed hypotheses, yes, but not every hypothesis that is confirmed pretends to be the sole explanation for every phenomenon. Your insistence that conservatives who doubt that the theory of evolution adequately explains the origin of the species are anti-science ignores the fact that many confirmed hypotheses have gone into a competing explanation called intelligent design (which is also a theory!). Neither of these theories pretend to be facts or laws, but they DO claim to explain the origin of the species, and they both have objective facts and confirmed hypotheses to back them up. When more than one theory can explain a phenomenon, scientists need more data, or a new framework to even conceive of a hypothesis that might confirm one or disprove the others. That’s how science works, and all true conservatives understand that, no matter how you protest, and mislabel. It’s liberals, on the other hand, who pretend a theory is a law that must be acted upon (always by an expansion of government, you’ll notice) before competing theories have a chance to be proven or dis-proven. No one teaches their child to mistrust science, but rather to understand when a question is settled and when it’s not yet.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:41pmhttp://scienceray.com/astronomy/the-galileo-myth/
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/204458/enlightenment-spin-galileo-myth-timess-slip-showing-media-shill-update/jonah-goldber
The progressives even have rewritten the history around Copernicus and Galileo in regards to to the ‘earth centrist’ view and the actual history…
Although earth centrism has its basis in historical fact, some used Copernicus and Galileo to attack ‘christianianity’, again Catholics at the time, as unscientific buffoons… Although it forgets that scientists at the time were usually of the priest class…
Report Post »inblack
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:49pm@SACREDHONOR1776
Also note that while Einstein and the anti-church movement was pushing the “truth” that man has no free-will, but life was totally deterministic, the church was the group fighting for the truth of free-will and free thinking.
But, you never read that in the media.
Report Post »GandalfTheGreyPilgrim
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 9:48pmEvolution does not have anything to do with how people study biology or how doctors heal people. Exactly how does a doctor use ‘natural selection’ in his day to day practice? He doesn’t. How does a doctor use the ‘tree of life’ to diagnose an illness? He doesn’t. All the modern miracles of medicine have arisen through observations, followed by the formulation of a hypothesis, followed by experiments to confirm the hypothesis. Scientists don’t need to know what our nearest ancestor was in order to study how DNA works. The designers of the MRI machine and other life-saving technologies owe nothing to Darwin or to his theory of evolution. Theories of evolution attempt to answer a historical question: how did life develop, how did species arise, etc. He did, however, use it to justify I note, by the way, that the mystery of how life arose from lifeless matter has yet to be solved.
Report Post »Lando
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:11pm“It’s called radioactive decay”
Actually, carbon dating is not accurate once you get high up there in years. Do some research and don’t believe everything you read in your “science” books. Like in all of history, scientists hate accepting new beliefs that shatter their theories, and yes it is still happening. Don’t assume this generation is any different.
And one major thing that everyone should keep into perspective is that the speed of light (long time thought to be a constant) has actually been proven to be slowing down. I’m not going to get into the ramifications of this discovery. But believe me, there are many!
Another thing to think about. Einstein proved that time is a physical property and that time is relative. Universe created in six days? I believe this may be a lot more true than people realize!
Needless to say, what a lot of people call proven science can be debunked rather easily. The main thing keeping people from finding the truth is believing they already know it.
Report Post »JohnofOregon
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:13pmMmmm, no where in here do they define science. Liberals think science is when one of their high priest chant a theory out load, and they reply it has been said so it is thy law. All independent thought or opinion must be put down, so Sayeth th goracle. (example)
In liberal science there is no observations, no hypothesis, no testing of said therory or peer review, no outside observation. That‘s why they still can’t pass a budget in the senate. It is a mental disorder.
In science, you do not do not write the thesis and work backward. Social scientist and lawyers do that.
Report Post »maccow
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:21pmAnd the elephant in the room that no one want’s to address goes as follows;
Liberal scientist starts with the premiss that God does not exist therefore……and Evolution is the result.
Report Post »The liberal theologian says that evolution is God’s work and the bible is allegorical.
Conservative scientists and theologians are more likely to begin with; God exists and the bible is His true and faithful communication to me ….. therefore Genesis.
Jesus validates Genesis. To believe in evolution is to deny Jesus’ authority, the bibles authority, and allegory renders the bible fundamentally meaningless.
Science has not made evolution a superior proposition for many bible believers.
Only two persons have ever communicated about the origins or genesis of the universe from an eyewitness perspective. That would be the God of the bible and His son Jesus. Okay, three counting the Holy Spirit.
The authority you give to their testimony will determine the rest of your outlook concerning the origin of the universe and humanity.
So no one, scientist, theologian, secular, or theist approaches this one topic without bias.
And none of us were there so none will ever know from an eyewitness perspective in this life.
OklahomaBound
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:22pmEverybody believes in science……we just don’t have many actual scientists left, just left-wing agenda driven propagandist churned out by so-called professors in left-wing indoctrination centers we call “Universities.”
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:30pmThe problem with “science” is that the “scientists” operate on grants and thus are beholden to the people who furnish said grants. Science HAS turned into JUNK as we have seen over and over again. I believe in pure science – the search for truth. NOT this bilge that has passed for science in the last few decades. The science community should feel SHAME for what it has turned into. WHORES turning tricks for the highest bidders!
Report Post »De minimus
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:35pmYes, and there are “scientists” that regularly prostitute themselves for both funding and idealogical reasons. Having once seen this, the public is understandably more distrustful of all scientists and their opinions and their presentations of the “facts”.
Need I remind you of the “climate-gate” e-mails?
Nothing less than iron-clad proof, not theory, of both data manipulation and conspiracy by “scientists”.
Report Post »bristoltrucker
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:37pmIf evolution had been proven over and over then why is it that scientists still call it just a theory? Once a theory has been proven it ceases to be a theory and then is called a scientific fact. Wanna try again?
Report Post »Snidely
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:38pmYokel, you just disqualified about half of all doctors from practicing medicine. Next time you talk to your doctor, ask her if evolution impacts how she treats a patient. If she’se honest, she will say no.
http://www.physorg.com/news6847.html
Report Post »Christhefarmer
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:53pmyo gravity is not a law it’s still a theory… there are not really that many laws…. while i agree most conservatives have a problem with science, it’s more because they were told that they had to have a problem with it…. people in general dont think about what they “know” so their understanding of anything is limited… evolutionist dont think about evolution, they read what other people think of it, whom probably read it from someone else who didn’t give it much thought. i am a farmer so i drive a tractor, lots of time to think while driving a tractor… also could be in mensa but not dumb enough to pay them to be… i find most liberals can’t explain to you why they believe what they do, and when you find one who can they can’t explain why what they believe can not be applied across the board… example: legalize pot, ban trans-fat, ex2: your a fool for believing there is a god, I mean where did he come from, (something from nothing argument corrected) Well you can’t prove to me that there was ever truly “nothing” so until you do we will have the baseline as there was always something in our “creation” of the universe theories… Man evolved from apes, why did catmen not evolve from cats, why was it only apes. Why did man lose his strength when he evolved from ape, why did man/ape not beat out ape, just as strong twice as smart and a better hand structure…. why did a fish grow lungs… see i think, and i love science
Report Post »Cat
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:57pmYokel >
Bull Crap
Frustrated alphas preying of trembling betas … both are schmucks …
If it weren’t for God, there would be no science to study, and if it weren’t for our curiosity about propagating, there would be no humans, and if it weren’t for our knowledge of history as a result of the propagation of life in continuum … oh forget it
Report Post »Skee
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:57pm@yokel32
Report Post »Comparing a beaker to a planet, allitle simplistic don’t ya think.
I didn’t know sun activity, ocean currents, volcanic activity,
vegetation and a slightly oblong orbit around the sun was all
packed into that little beaker. Now that’s science.
Measuring decaying radioactive isotopes and DNA is slightly
different from measuring the effects of human caused CO2
emissions when there are too many unknown variables.
If you think we ignore facts then why do you ignore the fact
there has been multilpe ice ages and warm periods in Earths
past. I don’t think scientists have found fossilized SUV tire
tracks as of yet. I‘m sure they’ll show up beside bigfoots
tracks.
RJJinGadsden
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 11:01pmYOKEL32, You truly sound like a serious student of “The Big Bang Theory.” And yeah, I mean the TV show.
Report Post »For further proof of what YOKEL32 usually posts just Google his name and check out this other favorite sites. His intelligence and age will shine through then.
Christhefarmer
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 11:43pmSimilar dna does not mean evolution…. tv’s have similar structures but they did not evolve from one to the next, each update to the “tv” line was a new tv. Who is debating atomic decay… oh wait I guess scientist are since we went from 6billion years to 4 billion…. I wonder if that is atomic decay from once earth started or from the universe… baseline might be hard to discover, ahh maybe they base it off that radiation wave….. cough….. Yeah co2 beaker… might be a little more to it then that, beaker sounds… i.d.k. static. but lets just go with it, more co2 more heat… trees like heat and eat co2… so trees grow…. eatting co2… less co2…. it’s also really not about co2 being able to heat faster, if it heats faster wouldn’t it also lose heat faster? so if we want warmer days and colder nights we need more co2? no they say co2 traps heat, a test to see if co2 gets hotter faster is useless… this goes back to the thinking vs reading issue. mistrust in “science” is valid, research is done looking for specific answers when the answers dont meet what they want they hide them, that is not science, that is a political objective wrapped in bs you call “science” it‘s a religion that goes against it’s own teachings. Yokel being that everything is moving in the universe can you think of a way to determine the speed at which we are moving away from then center of the universe? (yes the sun is moving too, no not our rotation around the sun) you can do it man
Report Post »toto
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 12:00amIt’s not the science per se I distrust, it’s the bias of the scientists, in discovering and understanding truths. It is not so just because a scientist says its so. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it partly right, and sometimes they are just flat out wrong, but they always come up with the data to back their findings. Nutrition is just one area where you can see incredible pronouncements made, only to have them debunked at a later time. Money and politics have taken over much of the arena, and that has bred much justifiable distrust. To paraphrase Reagan, scientists know so much that just isn’t so.
Report Post »Maji
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 12:15amYokel…care to site the paper or study that “proof positive” affirms
your claims???
Also at which moment did such said event become established and
were able to verifiy as a functioning independent life from non-life form?
Ahh heck can you just come close?
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 12:16amOh…I see. Science is used so much in every day life – empirical, logical, fact-embracing science – is used so often, that we distrust it, BECAUSE we disagree with the answers is gives us.
Right. Science says homosexuality is a birth defect, not a lifestyle choice. Science says 12% of all children have “autism” in the U.S. Science says humanity is causing the Earth’s climate to cool, no warm, no change in unpredictable – yet predictable – ways. Science “proves” there is no God (I happen to believe it proves there is a God).
Science is now described in terms of “consensus”, as opposed to proveable fact. Yes, because I disagree with Science, I distrust it. And it‘s not because I’m uneducated, I’m just ideoligically bigoted. Oh darn.
Report Post »jlinkbd
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 12:36amMuch of the “science” produced by the “scientific” community deserves the criticism it gets. A significant portion of the “scientific” community has become extremely careless in their application of scientific research principles. This is particularly true with the use of statistical methods in research. Pure statistical theory is sound scientifically as long as the principles are strictly adhered to, but when they are not, it becomes possible to reach almost any conclusion and call it science. Much of the problem is with the collection of the data used in research. Pure statistical theory requires that data be collected completely randomly. When it is, the resulting data sample will be reflective of the total population providing results that are reflective of the total population as well. When the data collected is not completely random, it becomes possible, if not probable, to reach conclusions which are not reflective of the total population resulting in “science” which is not reflective of reality. This is a huge problem in the scientific world but often gets a wink and a nod from supposed “peer reviewers” in the scientific community allowing garbage research to be published as fact when there are large holes in the research process. How often have we heard “studies show” this or that, and then ten years later we heard the exact opposite. Somehow the scientific community has been allowed to get away with this for decades. They deserve the criticism
Report Post »Shiroi Raion
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 1:27amWow! I was going to explain to Yokel why his argument a extremely flawed, but my computer had problems and needed to be shut down. I came back on and well… You guys already did it. I will just add that, Yokel, do you not realize how narrow minded you are showing yourself to be? These are not proofs, but you didn’t hesitate to call them so. I’ll tell you what has been prove though. The government’s so-called “scientists” have been falsifying their statistics to make them appear to meet their desired hypothesis because they want to keep stealing taxpayer dollars. If you pay some “scientists” enough, they will find a way to prove any hypothesis you want them to. This is junk science!
Report Post »Yokel said ,”America is “in decline” now because of this mistrust in science,“ and ”STOP TEACHING YOUR KIDS THAT SCIENTISTS DON”T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.” That is illogical. You assume too much. Do you realize that people can believe both in evolution and in God? People can also disbelieve both, but you sound as though you believe that one must believe only in one or the other.
Gauchat himself shows us why there is so much distrust. HE MISSED THE MOST OBVIOUS ANSWER! Too many “scientists” are being dishonest for ideology reasons, pride, and greed. Just like him! What a shocker! Another dishonest Liberal so-called “scientist”
S.E. Cupp got it exactly right, but Liberals are still blinded by their own rhetoric.
ChevalierdeJohnstone
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 2:30amLet’s count the ways Yokel32 is a yokel.
Nothing your physician does has anything to do with the origin of species by means of natural selection. To assert a connection is absurd.
“Evolution”, which is separate from genetic mutation, is not proven through DNA analysis. Or even studied that way.
Oxygen burns. CO2 is used in fire extinguishers. Really? You want to claim CO2 produces a stronger thermodynamic reaction than oxygen?
CO2 absorption spectrum for solar energy almost completely overlaps with the absorption spectrum of H2O. There is far more water in the atmosphere than CO2. Thus it is physically impossible for an increase in CO2 to result in an increase of solar absorption: all of that energy has already been absorbed by water vapor.
The reason conservatives distrust junk science like the pap this yokel is spewing is: we’re more intelligent than you are.
Report Post »RaydocX
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 2:42amThe issue is when modern ‘science’ ignores facts to guarantee a hypothesized endpoint… A la global warming. To the specific point: evolution DOES occur, but Darwin’s theory was that the changes in the finches were so pronounced they evolved into separate species that could no longer interbreed. Subsequent studies have disproved that on the same islands. Or to the broader theory: the most rabid evolution only supporter, in explaining the origin of life, gets to ‘and then some magic happens.’. Your ‘pure science’ magic is not different from my Higher Power… Only my faith vs your skepticism.
And sadly, skepticism has been brutally excluded from ‘modern’ scientific thinking, too often along with logic and truth. I grew up with scientists bemoaning the rise of ocean levels and global cooling’ and an ozone hole we had caused that would wipe us all out… Our understanding lets us notice many things, but our grasp of the causes AND consequences is imprecise and potentially inaccurate. Pretending otherwise is why trust in science has suffered.
Report Post »Brooke Lorren
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 4:02amThe theory of evolution is not very applicable in treating patients at the doctor’s office. I can think of a few scientists where their belief in evolution does affect practical application. Dr. Jack Kruse’s theory of Cold Thermogenesis, for example, is rooted in his belief in evolution; T.S. Wiley and some of the paleo types are others. I personally don’t believe in evolution, but I still can learn from these people. Their disagreement with me on evolution matters little when it comes to practical applications.
There is some science that I trust, and others that I don’t trust. Do I trust the scientists behind MyPlate.gov? No. Half of them work for the food industry and have vested commercial interests in getting people to eat more grains. Do I trust the scientists at Apple Computer to come up with a good product? Sure.
Some scientists I can agree with in certain areas but not others. For example, I was watching a series of lectures on astronomy last year. When the professor talked about methods used to discover other planets outside the solar system, black holes, and many other phenomena, I could agree with him. However, when he started outlining facts about things like the overall temperature of the universe, etc., and then used those facts to jump to the conclusion that the big bang must be true, I just couldn’t agree with his jump in logic.
Report Post »azitdad
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 4:05am@YOKLE
You’re an idiot. NO ONE is saying they don’t trust doctors, but yeah Global Warmin… Climate Change is a lie. Yes, it is. Back in the 1970′s science told us we were days away from an Ice Age. What happened? Nothing. That’s what. Now, its supposed to be getting hotter? No. Wrong. How does that cool-aid taste?
Report Post »mauijonny
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 4:07am“man made global warming” is the #1 reason = it’s not science that Conservatives distrust, it’s “scientist.” Having worked in the field, I can tell you, unequivacally, that “scientist” dump studies that don‘t match their gov’t funded hypothesis…
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 4:23amMedical Doctors… are Not Scientists… nor do they specialize in any Science!
Report Post »IspytheGov
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 4:29amUm you would lose that bet, given the difference in mass between CO2 and OX your container of CO2 would take more caloric heat to achieve the same temperature, as the container of OX because of mass. and you have it all wrong. we don’t like being lied too as a justification for taking more liberty, and rising cost.
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 7:24am1 science is meant not to be trusted or it would not be science.
Report Post »2. Your CO2 theory is stupid…. Heating faster and heating hotter are obvious differing issues.
rangerp
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 8:36amHappyStretchedThin
awsome answer, I wish you posted more often.
it is not the science that I question, it is the liberl gov expansion based of theory. I do not agree with the title of this article. I believe in science as much now as ever, and I find it amazing at how much science back up what I know Biblically. What I do not trust, is the fuzzy science in regards to such topics as man made climate change, and why we should redistribut wealth because of it.
Thanks for your comments, keep at it, and post more often.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 8:38amhttp://mbbc.us/resource/skeptics.pdf
the Bible and Science walking hand in hand
Report Post »BlackAce41
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 8:42amHow did the prove it? did they go back in time and find it to be true?
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 9:05amThe “science” of evolution is so indefensible that the intoduction of life on earth has now been passed to extraterrestial intervention. Time and random chance can’t account for it, so it came from ET. Anything evolving from nothing is absurd. Please explain how any complex system evolved. Please explain the eye, the digestive system, nervous sytem or any other system. When you take away anything, the system is worthless. Until you have everything working in harmony, you have nothing. Without wheels, a car is just a ornament on a liberal’s lawn. Without a pump, your swimming pool is just a fancy pond. Without specific chemical and electrical activities, nerves can’t even twitch. Without a brain to control the nervous system, a conservative becomes a liberal. Evolutionary science, climate change, and a host of other “sciences” come to the table with pre-conceived expectations based mostly on funding. If climate science funded by an oil company is considered to have been corrupted, why isn’t the same true when funded by those who will profit from the policies the human-caused global warming crowd propose? Sorry for the generalism, but Conservatives seek the truth, while Lliberal seek and accept only answers that will support their causes or theories.
Report Post »Abraham Young
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 9:16amthe theory and philosophy contributes NOTHING to medical science. Other than a being a hindrance to healing and health.
Lies and falsehoods are not curative.
There are ZERO facts to evolution. There are no science based experiments that establish the veracity of “natural selection” or “common descent”. All experimentation done to date establish only that there are no beneficial morphological changes that occur on a scale necessary for a species to transform into another. Heck, they can’t even adequately define the word “species” or “science”. Evolution is a fake science, doesn’t belong in the same class as real science. Even mathematics are against the theory. Study “No Free Lunch”. Evolution is the biggest con since time began.
I have a healthy mind in a healthy body, I didn’t get that way by consulting allopathic physicians. I got better when I took responsibility to discover the truth for myself, and quit paying the allopaths to keep me sick with pharmaceuticals that enslave and toxify my body.
Go ahead, keep believing in the allopathic lie. I’ll be healthier than you.
Report Post »Mizurax
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 9:27amTo Yokel32′s points:
“The same science that allowed us to develop atomic weapons allows to determine the age of a rock. It’s called radioactive decay. It is not junk science.”
Take some time and look into the process of getting something dated. It is anything but pure science. So many assumptions are needed. They even make one give their “estimated date” before they’ll do the tests. Why do they need to know how old the submitter thinks the rock is?
“Climate science is not junk science. If you heat a beaker of CO2 vs a beaker of pure oxygen, the CO2 will heat faster. The more CO2 we have in our atmosphere, the warmer the climate is.”
Studies by NASA done recently have shown that the Earth radiates more heat into space at higher average Earth temperatures. The whole global warming theory is based on heat being trapped in our atmosphere.
You’re just another who refuses to look at all sides of a story. You pick your pony and seek only to support it. That is not a search for truth. That is an attempt to create your own “truth.”
Report Post »Sh3LLz
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 9:37amTheories, theories…. THEORIES
The word THEORY, does NOT mean TRUTH.
Report Post »rollthebones
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 10:14am“They believe them because they have been proven to be true.”
Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence. Proving something does not necessarily mean it is the truth. It just means that you have convinced other people that the evidence supports your conclusion until there is a better explanation that agrees with the evidence.
Report Post »TRUTHSENSE
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 11:38amYOKEL32 – Why do I have a certain distrust of some science? I have been around for 65 years now and I have seen science change it’s “facts” over and over again. Do I reject all science? Of course not, but I am skeptical of much of it. Much of what science tells us is “fact” today, will be proven wrong by science tomorrow. For years I have been told that salt caused high blood pressure. Now they are saying that’s not true. You say evolution is the heart of biology? Sorry, but biology was studied and taught long before the theory of evolution came along.
Report Post »yokel32
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 11:59amScience is the only solution to our planet’s problems. It has advanced civilization far more than any other philosophy. You people who deny the realities that have been proven are doing it at your own peril. Watch some simple straight-forward videos on how evolution is a reality, how it has been proven to be a fact, and how it has advanced medicine.
Report Post »http://video.pbs.org/video/1372073556
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/cracking-your-genetic-code.html
Geology tells us the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This same science allows us to produce the oil in the ground. Climate science is not a lie. This is a very sad comment board and the fact that you guys will deny these basic aspects of reality shows the reason we are becoming less productive as a nation. OUR CHILDREN ARE LEARNING NOT TO TRUST SCIENCE. THIS IS THE CAUSE OF OUR DOWNFALL. Good luck to you guys. I hope you have happy lives. You obviously don’t wish the same to me, just because I believe in science. I hope your beliefs never become policy.
cessna152
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 1:46pmScience books change over time, the Bible has not.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 1:49pmO my!
There are people, like yourself who choose not to believe in a god-like supernatural being.
Everyone has to make these kinds of decisions for himself.
However, I will contend that people who refuse to believe in God or in “a” god, always believe in magic. When you examine science with the assumption that no one designed anything, you HAVE to believe in magic.
What else would you call the evolutionist’s theory that the first life was created when a bolt of lightning struck a pile of mud?
What else would you call it when you realize how perfectly the solar system and the rest of the galaxies around us move in perfect synchronized patterns year after year, century after century?
What else would you call it when one microscopic cell from a male and one microscopic cell from a female join together, re-shuffle thousands, if not millions, of pieces of genetic information, and a new organism is created? The new organism shares characteristics of both parents.
You may choose not to believe in God, but your only real alternative then, is to believe in magic
Report Post »Dr Vel
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 1:59pmWell rocket scientist if so, all things would be constantly evolving. Why is a two million year old fossil of a cockroach identical to the one I just stepped on? Wheres the beef I mean the evolution there?
Report Post »maccow
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 3:13pm@Yokal
All of the “DOWNFALL” you see is not due to a move away from science but rather due to our movement away from God’s law. The bible is clear and self explanatory concerning the end state when mankind rejects its creator and instead seeks after laws of their own creation. LAWLESSNESS is the term the bible uses and that is what this generation is becoming.
Man is destroying the earth; How arrogant of him to think he can. The LORD in heaven laughs and will hold him in derision (Psalm 2). When He stops the wind from blowing and the sun from shining, what use will their solar panels and wind turbines be? (Rev 7:1, Rev 8:12) The Lord who holds this world will not be mocked.
Sadly I see all of society, not just the United States, on an irrevocable down hill slide towards a conclusion of biblical proportion. Thanks to Yokal liberals like you.
OWS + We are the 99% leads to Lawlessness.
Italian and Greek austerity measures lead to Lawlessness.
The Arab Spring = Lawlessness.
Treavon Martin case = Black Panther bounty = lawlessness.
Obamacare vurse the Constitution = Lawlessness
SEIU and Teamster intimidation in Wisconsin = Lawlessness
Eric Holder and Fast and Furious = Lawlessness
The Church isn’t teaching the word of God, ie. Jim Wallace, Rev Wright/Sharpton/Jackson et all.
Probably most damning to God, we have turned our backs on Israel, His chosen piece of real-estate and people.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom.
I could go on.
Report Post »maccow
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 3:43pm@Yokel
You go ahead and keep serving your man centered science fiction.
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.” (Matthew 6:24)
“But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Joshua 24:15)
So that I do not make an argument with human words;
“There is a way [that seems] right to a man, But its end [is] the way of death.” (Proverbs 14:12)
“For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains [will do so] until He is taken out of the way.” (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
“Then [comes] the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.” (1 Corinthians 15:24)
“Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” (Hebrews 12:28)
And Jesus says; “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
“He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.” (John 14:24)
We are on an irrevocable slide to a well advertised and inevitable conclusion. You have two clear choices, follow the lawless ones of this world, or the Law Giver who saved us from the penalty of the law. Whose side will you chose?
Report Post »Annika2011
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 4:32pmI think God created evolution.
Report Post »And everything else too.
psychokittis
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 5:08pmActually, evolution has not been proven by any means. It is, however rife with fraud-Nebraska an, Java Man, Piltdown Man, etc. Also, the dating is not as accurate as you think. Many sample are deemed to be bad samples and thrown out because they don ‘t match up with someone’s preconcieved notions. As to CO2 levels, yes, they are rising, but the evidence shows that they tend to rise about 700-800 years after a warming trend. Coincidentally, it’s been about that longfsince the end of the middle age warming period when overall temperatures were much warmer than now. As to the age of the earth, consider this-at known rates of erosion, all land would erode and be at the bottom of the ocean in about 15 million years, yet somehow, there are moutains being tested at 300 million years-about 285 million years beyond their expiration date.
Report Post »for more info go to: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
It will explain thing in greater detail than I can.
maccow
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 7:05pm@Annika
You don’t have to believe the lie. God’s account in Genesis is as reasonable a proposition as Evolution. God as creator is backed up by the rest of the bible including the teachings of Jesus, where as evolution isn’t even hinted at. Evolution is not compatible with Genesis or any other creation passage in the entire bible. So if God, the only eyewitness to creation, is trying to fool us with His description in Genesis, what else is He not giving to us straight? Jesus, also an eyewitness of creation, validates Genesis (Mark 10:6, Mark 16:19) so did Jesus get it wrong or was He misleading us?
Evolution is first and foremost an attempt to disprove God and thereby make man unaccountable to a higher power. The same ideology that would try and disprove God is the same ideology that would have you be accountable to government and democratic mob rule as the highest authority.
This is a direct continuation of Satan’s work in Genesis 3. First he creates doubt, “Did God truly say?“ then he directly contradicts ”You will not surely die.” Then Satan plays on man’s ego, “You shall be like God” the same boast that got satan kicked out of heaven and he wants to keep you condemned with himself. (Isaiah 14:12-)
Liberal Theology like Liberal Politics always seeks to lift man’s wise, enlightened, utopian kingdom above God’s kingdom. God’s kingdom will come and sooner then you think. The wise servant studies God’s word in order to prove him/herself fit for the k
Report Post »HumbleMan
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 7:10pm@Yokel, you are the typical liberal who thinks they believe in science, but they really only believe in ideology.
Evolution is not incompatible with the concept of a creator. What did you think that God used leggo’s to make the universe? Do you think it beyond the creator to create DNA? Do you really think the big bang disproves the existence of a creator?
Anthropogenic climate change is a “racket” and at it’s roots you will find the communist agenda. Scientifically it is lunacy.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on March 31, 2012 at 1:18amThe biggest reason for the decline is the lefts assertion that we humans are putting too much co2 in the atmosphere and thereby causing Global Warming. Then we found out that the scientists were cooking the books. BUSTED! Can you blame us. We simply used logic and logic won.
Besides, for me personally, the more science learns about… well, everything, it becomes more clear to me that a higher power had a hand in all that is known to mankind.
Report Post »Tretka
Posted on March 31, 2012 at 2:33amYokel32-Not for nothing, but, of course DNA is real. And, that has become useful.
Science can’t solve everything-it just can’t because man created Science. My theory is-don’t give me a study, don’t give me a theory, SHOW ME WHAT IT DOES AND CAN WE USE IT. Then we know the Science worked.
Report Post »jerimia
Posted on March 31, 2012 at 4:35amTheories are neither true nor false. “evidence” either affirms or denies its validity. as for scientist they have lost a great deal of credibility. Especially East Anglia regarding global warming (read the e-mails). Conservatives are critical thinkers, much more then Liberals just read a liberals post . The alleged Sociology above is obviously subjective not science. There is a concerted effort to discredit Conservatives with pseudo-science and “opinion” not science!
Report Post »Cat
Posted on March 31, 2012 at 10:38amMaccow >
Have to disagree with you.
People cannot possibly understand infinity in infinite directions.
Inner space and as well as outer space is a continuum, but in manmade time, we cannot fathom that.
Most shackle God into a confined universe, the universe within themselves for the limited time they can comprehend, for the purpose of assuring eternal life in a place they cannot comprehend.
They label that the soul.
Stepping outside of the confines of one’s soul is to wonder at the mysterious works of God and knowing God granted that ability to those with a soul, and limited time, to do so.
Yes, I do believe in the big bang theory, and further believe there have been, and will be, an infinite amount of big bangs because of God, and not an invention to disprove the existence of God.
Yes, I do believe in evolution and that forms of life have changed, and forms of life will continue to change for infinity because of God, and not an invention to disprove the existence of God.
Since time is manmade for the purpose of measure, time can be extracted, but not the measure of God.
God, is, was, and always will be, infinity in infinite directions.
Report Post »maccow
Posted on March 31, 2012 at 1:36pm@CAT
Report Post »Very little, of what you say conforms to what God through the bible has imparted to us.
That is my contention with liberal theology like yours. It is just humanistic tripe designed by Satan to continue perpetrating his lie that man can be as God, knowing, determining, reasoning according to your own wisdom, what is the extent of good and evil.
I agree with you that God is great and infinite as the bible clearly states. (Psalm 147:5) But why don’t you search the scriptures for in them you will find the true wisdom of God’s eternal nature;
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)
Man’s quest for eternal life;
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: (Romans 2:7)
God’s fulfilled purpose for you;
For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
Why then do liberals insist on replacing the truth and wisdom of the ages for the enlightenment of their <80 year existence?
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)
FreedomsFury
Posted on March 31, 2012 at 2:12pmif Evolution has been proven why do these “scientists” constantly try to make people believe in it by conjuring up fossils like I dont know lets say mending a Human Jawbone to a Monkey Skull and then “ hey look everybody I found the missing link” and lets call it Dawson Dawnman and then guess what it is found to be a fake the guy even admits it on his death bed he faked it, BUT YET IT IS STILL IN TEXTBOOKS ALL OVER AS PROOF OF EVOLUTION. We have all been lied to by these peoople who have such a distain for The MOST HIGH this is just one example of pretty much every Missing Link they ever find just like in China in 1999, they will do anything to try to bring everybody into their unhappy GODless existence, Dont Believe This Outrageos Lie, I Pray Your Heart Will Be Softened And The Veil Be Lifted Off Your Eyes, That You May Know The TRUTH is the WORD of GOD, For In The Beginning Was The WORD, The WORD Was With GOD, The WORD Was GOD, The WORD Became Flesh And Dwelt Amongst Us, HE Is JESUS CHRIST The WAY The TRUTH And The LIFE. I Feel GOD In My Heart Everyday There Is Not That Will Ever Compare, HE Warmed My Cold Heart, I Am A New Man, A New Creature In CHRIST, Old Things Have Passed Away, Behold All Things Have Become New.
Report Post »maccow
Posted on March 31, 2012 at 8:34pmWish I had thought of these while people were still reading this story.
Other News Headlines that are not news;
Study shows;
Liberal’s trust in God at all time low.
Liberal’s trust in government at all time high.
Liberal’s control of their fellow man highest since fall of the Soviet Union.
Man’s fear of the LORD lowest since the Days of Noah.
Man’s love for lawlessness highest since the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra.
Last but not least;
God’s patience with mankind at lowest level since the time of the flood.
Time remaining before the return of God’s son at the lowest point in modern history.
That last one has been true everyday since His ascension but seems more relevant today then ever
Report Post »God bless
Cat
Posted on March 31, 2012 at 10:47pmMaccow >
Get your head out of your butt, jackass
Report Post »Love God and all his magnificent wonders, live life and die happy
Tell us all about it after your carcass is six feet under
K?
maccow
Posted on April 1, 2012 at 8:01pm@CAT
Report Post »You wrote, “….jackass. Love God….” I find that back to back combination of terms very telling.
Sapience
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:34pmIt’s not science so much as it is scientists.
Report Post »Steven_F
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:41pmYou beat me to this comment. I just created an account for the express purpose of stating that I trust science, but not the majority of people CALLED scientists.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:52pmAmen sapience. No true conservative picks a fight with legitimately, scientifically objective facts. Our problems are the political solutions the left proposes, using *interpretations* of facts cherry-picked to support their aims. The left makes false claims to objectivity, and then when we reject the claims, they say we’re anti-science. No, we’re anti-JUNK science, anti-SPUN science, and we understand that scienTISTS need jobs, are human beings, have agendas, and only ask questions they can get funding to ask.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:53pmit also is because a liberal will not change his mind even when confronted with proof to the contrary
Report Post »TheObamanation
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:56pmScience has no agenda … scientists do
Report Post »JL9999
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:56pmAbsolutley. It doesn;t seem to matter what the subject or discipline, “scientists” take a look at the political implications of their findings way too often. It doesn;t matter wa white what the political ramifications are in research – or it shoud not anyway – unless you are a Democrat.
Report Post »TOMSERVO
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:02pm@HappyStretchedThin LOL! You guys wouldn’t know a “legitimately, scientifically objective fact” if it fell from a tree onto your head.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:12pm@Tomservo: name one scientific fact conservatives reject. (hint: I know the common ones, and I can prove to you either that: a. we don’t reject them; or b. you’re mis-naming them as “facts” when they’re not….But feel free to put your money where your mouth is instead of flinging baseless insults…)
Report Post »republitarian
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:40pmIt is the scientists but it’s more than that. The process used to determine what is generally accepted as fact is dis-functional to say the least. There are reputations on the line and grant money to be secured.
And scientists are by no means above human nature.
Report Post »Dustoff
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:48pmYou said it…. it went from proof to their feelings. like say G/W
Report Post »Rollo2
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:10pmScientists and those who are expected to report on them. Dr Phil Jones (East Anglia CRU) said that there has been no Increase in average global temperature since 1997!
Did ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN,anybody report this?
Ifound it in Drudge, link to “the Standard” I believe.
I can find it again, but it’ll take a little time.
And I have never had anybody ask for it ! I say I have the quote, and nobody wants to see it!!!
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 11:13pmTOMSERVO, LOL, used to laugh at you as one of the wise ass robotic critters on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Now, I just laugh at you. Offer some meat on the bones of your accusations how about it.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 4:26amReal, actual, Science is valuable… Opinions of Scientists are mostly BS!
Report Post »4xeverything
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 8:42am@SAPIENCE
My thoughts exactly.
Report Post »HumbleMan
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 7:13pmYou hit the nail on the head. Even though I am a scientist, I agree. The problem is too many scientist have no conscience. They want to believe the Utopian lie.
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” Joseph Stalin.
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:30pmAnd we don’t trust them because they are liberal, liberals are teaching in our universities and colleges. They are indoctrinating and have indoctrinated people/children over the past 40 years…and continue to do so today….Antisemitism runs rampant with the liberals…
Then you have the MSMs that sides with the far left and the Alinsky way of life…
Trust, you don’t get trust when you lie, intimidate and beat us up…And we are sick and tired of being pushed and pulled…it is inelastic.
Report Post »TOMSERVO
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:45pmIf by “indoctrinating” you mean “teaching,” then yes, the schools are indoctrinating children every day. Sorry
Report Post »Mikev5
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:50pmYes Yes that I agree on that, a lot of the socialists infiltrated the system also Junk science has become the norm now. These people use it as a means to an end like Beck has been warning us about for years.
It used to be they had to prove beyond dough their findings were proven and then double checked by other people before anything was published even then it could be challenge.
It took many years of research and checking by other scientists before anything could be considered a solid proven fact.
Not now it’s all political maneuvering and Money Money Money.
Report Post »maccow
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:53pm@Tom
Report Post »You are sorry? If you don’t know or cannot see the difference between teaching critical thinking and indoctrination of impressionable youth, then you are either willfully blind or ignorant. Your choice.
TOMSERVO
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:05pm@Maccow, so teaching “critical thinking” is akin to teaching both evolution and intelligent design, perhaps? Great, rather than try to get to the forefront of human thought and keep going, we will instead keep rehashing the same asinine debate we’ve had a million times.
While this is happeining, the Chinese and Indians are cranking out scientists by the tens of thousands, and their litmus test is a simple “does it work or does it explain something,“ not ”God said it, I believe it, that’s it.” If we as a nation, continue to be so skeptical of science, we are screwed.
Report Post »raiderglenn
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:20pm@ tomservo
quick question, does huffpo pay you per troll post? or do you have to just put in a certain # of hours trolling?
how much do they pay by the way?
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:28pmTOMSERVO’
Report Post »YES! China & India are laughing all the way to the bank! they know Human caused global climate change is nothing more than a power grab caused by the indoctrination of our children over the past 30 years. Humans are so all powerful that we Humans are irrevocably changing the climate.
Yet the global temperature has been declining for the past ten years.
maccow
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:36pm@Tom
Report Post »I did not say what teaching critical thinking was akin too, those are your words and demonstrate your agenda. What you call an asinine debate others call foundational truth, but its probably best just to shut them up. Would silencing opposition be the critical thinking person’s way, or the way of the indoctrinated liberal?
You then are kind enough to make my case concerning critical thinking and indoctrination by showing how indoctrination is leaving our youth in the dust of the Chinese and Indians. So how about trying to see if critical thinking actually works rather than doing it because my liberal professor, or Al Gore said it.
Because we as a nation continue to be so skeptical of God, we are screwed.
You must be the product of a public school that didn’t teach critical thinking.
Tretka
Posted on March 31, 2012 at 2:39amTOMSERVO- throw us a Scientific fact that has proved out something useful to the human race and most would agree with you. So go ahead, give us a useful Scientific fact. No studies, no opinions please.
TB is a treatment for bladder cancer-fact-and it works. Does this impress you. I am a Christian, I believe we were intelligently designed, and by golly a Conservative. Whoops.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:28pmI don’t get what the Y axis units actually are. What does it mean to score “4” on “trust in science”?
Plus, it seems that there is very little difference between the groups and across time, everyone scores between 4 and 5. The changes and or differences may be statistically reliable but it is certainly not significantly different conceptually. This study really seems to suggest everyone tested has a pretty similar “trust in science” both between the arbitrary groups and across time.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:28pmMany conservatives seem to hold to a conspiracy theory regarding science. Regulatory government funds a lot of scientific research, therefore, cientists have mendaciously conspired to give the government the results it wants.
Of course, it’s a crock. Any team of scientists who could prove that global warming is not occurring, or that human activity is not contributing to it, would be richly rewarded–by the oil industry, if not by the Nobel Prize Committee. So far, nothing.
Report Post »Dustoff
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:50pmOne “only” has to look at the nutty statements from Dr. Hanson (NASA) to really wonder, who is telling the truth.
Report Post »maccow
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:56pm@Lloyed
Report Post »Would that be the same Nobel Prize Committee that gives awards to Al Gore and Barak Obama? No chance in the world they would be ideologically opposed to a contrarian global warming scientist.
Stoic one
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:00pmnope funding comes from the guberment. It is not science unless it comes from a guberment funded university or college.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:37pmGore and Obama won Nobel Peace prizes. The criteria for the science Nobels are rather more stringent. Data suggesting that global warming, though real, is not acute, or that its anthropogenic component is less than previously thought, are announced routinely. There is no conspiracy to suppress such data where it is warranted.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 9:05pm@LOID
Scientists have measured the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and NOT found the predicted behavior – that is heating in the upper atmosphere.
So if your theory for global warming is built on CO2 and the greenhouse effect and that premise is proven wrong, you need to go back to the original hypothesis – start over.
Politicians and false scientists have not done that, they ignore the proof that their hypothesis was proven wrong and go on building political inertia.
Teachers in the US continue to run al gore’s propaganda film twice a year to every student, without caveat, because they know it supports their political machine and union. The children are not taught to ask why does the supposed “effect” follow after the “cause”. No, they are taught to pity the polar bear and it’s pending extinction. BTW polar bear populations have been increasing and polar bears as a species have lived through much warmer periods than the current “global warming” period.
You are wrong, biased and are lying to yourself.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:54pmInBlack:
I personally have no “theory for global warming.”
Scientists do have various theories. They assign different values to different factors, from solar cycles, to volcanic activity, to “natural” climatic cycles which have been going on for millions of years, to human burning of fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. However, all serious climate scientists have found that the earth is presently warming, with most of the hottest years on record lying within the last decade or so. That is an indisputable fact.
What activists make of it, how Al Gore capitalizes on it, whether polar bears need saving or are worth saving–those are other matters entirely. We can debate about what if anything to do about it, but if you deny that it is happening, you are foolish and deluded.
Report Post »HumbleMan
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 7:43pmDrako … crawl back under your rock and curl up with your copy of Alinsky’s “rules for radicals”.
Do you want to discuss “transmittance” spectra for CO2 or H2O and what the relative significance of each are at capturing black-body radiation from the earth? I call you out.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on April 1, 2012 at 9:45amI would love to discuss tramsmittance spectra with you. You go first.
I have never read Alinsky. I had a copy out of my local library about 40 years ago, but never got around to it. Can you fill me in?
Report Post »Aerocog
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:27pmDon’t think Conservatives are distrustful of science but more like the scientist and community, they’ve often found themselves opposing Conservatives either on social or environmental issues so it is politicizing thing.
Report Post »symphonic
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:44pm…and they’ve corrupted it.
Report Post »BlackCrow
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:27pmPhysics is physics, chemistry is chemistry, biology is biology. Anyone who doubts gravity, explosions or reproduction is living in la-la land. Climate Change is NOT science! Without getting into the details of how to write a computer program suffice it to say the computer models those climate “scientists” are using will return the results expected no matter what data is input.
If you “believe” Genesis over observed phenomena then I can’t help you. That makes as much sense as disregarding a heliocentric solar system.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:17pmand God creating the heaven and the earth is so hard to believe why? everything just spontaneously happened? matter was created out of nothing which ended up in perfect harmony? I do believe it takes more faith NOT to believe in the Creator and Genesis than it does to believe.
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 9:09pmBlackCrow…You might want to sit down for this one …Sir Isaac Newton believed in the story of Genesis
Report Post »ANOTHERCONSERVATIVEBRONY
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 9:20pmI’d sooner trust observation of redshift and background radiation to inform me about the age and origin of the universe.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 11:49amBoth redshift and background radiation may be related to entirely different phenomena than what is presumed these days. To assume they give you a reasonable tool for gauging the age of the universe is not that remote from divination.
Report Post »HumbleMan
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 7:32pmI guess it’s not imprudent for me to say, as a TEA-party conservative, that I am one of over 9,000 Ph.D’s (in my case physics) who have signed the “Global Warming Petition Project” denouncing man-made global warming and the Kyoto agreement.
Report Post »vtxphantom
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:26pmI do have trust in science, but I have great distrust in scientists.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:55pmscientists with self severing agendas have been the problem. The EPA being number one on the list & the UN not far behind. The goal being to rape the US tax payer under the guise of saving the planet. .
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:22pmIt decades ago that scientists were pandering about Global Cooling.
It was scientists who theorized the so called “china syndrome” which is effectively a crock pot imagining of fear mongers.
“Scientists” predicted a population bomb that would force us all into mass famine
Scientists also thought that psychological sickness was contagious, engaged in purifying the human race and many other mistakes that have gotten people killed.
And on a less lethal note, they said coconut oil was bad for you (false) eggs are bad (false) and the food pyramid has gone through more changes than my sister does looking for the right outfit.
Not so much of a squeaky clean legacy as Liberals like to imagine. And when they like to throw more of their pseudo science about how they can make drugs to prevent racism and how they can prove they are inherently smarter than conservatives, it isn’t hard to figure out why we would be a little less than trusting when scientists come up with some new great discovery.
Report Post »rollthebones
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 10:23am“I do have trust in science, but I have great distrust in scientists.”
Agreed.
Report Post »marcus_arealius
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:24pmThe scientific process is sound. I would venture to say that it’s Junk Science that is at the core of the mistrust, which of course is not science at all. Adding to that, the politicization of science discoveries further erodes confidence that anything good for mankind will come of them. Furthermore, governmental pre-determination of scientific findings by way of funding taints many science research. When private industry retakes the funding and promotion of science, trust and confidence may return. Get government and the dirty money out of the process. Get government out of our lives.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:57pmJunk Science used to pick your pocket…..
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:14pmit is the dirty money you got that right. the gov hires these folks for studies with an agenda. don’t fit the agenda no more money. it is a pay to play scheme and I am sick of it along with the majority of other folks.
Report Post »TOPOFTHEGAME
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:22pmWhether it’s Global Warming or Creation……… I believe ANY scientist and most pasters that are NOT taking grants from our Colleges, our Govenrnent or Bill Gates Trust. All the rest are in BED with the 1 % or the NWO
Report Post »TOMSERVO
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:30pmANY scientist? Nice vetting process you got there.
Report Post »infortheride
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:22pmHey Couchrat, you should have thought of how the politics do influence, i.e MONEY for research. Who ever gives the most gets the best results. This is were lack of science needs to be studied.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:20pmSpeaking from a conservative, christian, homeschooler, public school’s curriculum is very biased regarding science, along with many other subjects…as soon as they start out with two hundred million years ago…I have to stop and explain to my child that God’s word tells us this…so that way she will get more than one perspective on science…or anything else for that matter.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:39pmNo wonder your kids are idiots, they have an idiot for a teacher. Creationism is not different than the ancient Greek or Hindu myths. Only a brain dead fool takes the bible as a literal truth.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 9:49pmNice Encinom…spoken like a true liberal..dripping with hate.
Report Post »MTSchmidt
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:38pmEncinom, it is interesting that you him, and his children, idiots. You do not know him, nor have you done any study on their method of education. However, upon the studies of others – including the government, home schooled children test far higher than public education AND graduate, on average, two years earlier. Sooooo, if you are truly trying to make a logical argument again him, these FACTS throw a massive kink into your reasoning. (just so you know, brilliant scientists like Sir Isaac Newton were Christian. Newton actually wrote more on theology than he did science)
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 5:36pmOh by the way Encinom…not that I have to justify myself regarding whether I have idiot children…Lets see …two graduated highschool at 16…one is a nurse and one is going to nursing school…both my daughter take care of their children…married, no welfare or government help…they have respect for elders and I dare say they are polite well rounded individuals…unlike someone I know…not quite finished with my last child…I’ll let you know how that one turns out!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:19pmAs those who believe in the creation myths overtook and replaced the logical conservatives, those today who call themselves conservative are more likely Christian taleban, under educate fools that believe the lies Fox News peddles.
Report Post »marcus_arealius
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:29pmYour are clearly a moron. Can you explain to us Blazers just what it’s like to be cursed with a 2 digit IQ?
Report Post »Don’t hurt yourself trying to write a coherent response.
Just_Us
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:29pmI am a huge skeptic when it comes to scientists. But liberals will always believe that a cream can enlarge your breasts, ointment can take a bald man and restore him to a full head of hair, a pill can increase the size and width of a ******* and a powder can make you lose weight without diet and exercise….why? Because a, “scientist” said so. There is no questioning authority for these sheep which is why weight loss pills, creams, foams and jells meant to grow something somewhere make millions. Stupid liberals think that they can take a pill and it will make them taller, better looking, thinner without having to actually working at it. You will forever be living in your parent’s basement, fat, stupid and bitter because you got the shallow end of the gene pool. The smell of your own farts will kill you before CO2 does!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:44pm@Just_Us
Which is why most of those scam artist commercials run on Fox News and programs aimed at Red Necks. In his last days on Fox the snake oil salesmen were the only one left advertising on Beck’s show.
Most liberals are educated and now to investigate the authority, most Conservatives just follow the leader.
Report Post »Dustoff
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:54pmlies Fox News peddles
************************************
Care to Prove just one.
I can give you two from CNN. Tailwind and when CNN was still helping Saddam in Iraq, when admitted they lied in order to stay there.
Fire away, if you can.
Report Post »GUYFROMMAINE
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 8:03pmAhhh, here you are again. Please, instead of name calling, tell us what you believe so we can have an open discussion.
Report Post »TOMSERVO
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:18pmNo doubt this extremely scientific Blaze poll will reveal much. Let me guess: you answered no and 97% of voters agreed.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 11:38pmAgain, must I point out that you are a Science Fiction Character.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:17pmI put the statement this way:
People are not trusting in JUNK SCIENCE of the Progressives! They see the lies for what they truly are – LIES.
Real science is based on truth, nothing less and nothing more.
Report Post »TOMSERVO
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:28pmNo self-respecting scientist would ever agree with something as anti-science as “Real science is based on truth, nothing less and nothing more.”
No. Real science builds and organizes knowledge in the form of repeatable, testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:31pmActually, real science is based on collective, peer-reviewed debate regarding large sums of highly reliable and predictive models based on years of collected evidence.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:32pmThe erosion in the trust of science, can be traced to one fact, and that is the elitist left-wingers using science as a platform to co-opt our liberties, peddle their nanny state philosophies, consolidate their political power and attempt to even destroy our faith……I will trust in a branch of science, when it is proven to me that I can have a reasonable expectation that it isn’t being used as a propaganda tool against me.
Report Post »TOMSERVO
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:53pm@TXPilot: It sounds like you don‘t like science when it doesn’t support your politics. Not a very grown up way to look at things.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:28pm@TOMSERVO…….And Tommy, it sounds like you are an ignorant drone, who has grown up being spoon fed your preferred meal of left-wing propaganda….to the point, you can no longer think for yourself, and simply repeatedly parrot whatever you have had pumped into your mind. What it boils down to, is people like you, and your elitist masters, hate anyone that exhibits symptoms of independent thought…..
Report Post »Bolo2811
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:16pmIt’s no wonder either. When Science ceased to be science and instead became uniformitarian indoctrination of a FORCED world view that is becoming more and more unstable EVERYDAY, the REAL free thinkers began jumping ship. By it’s own definition “good science” is “good observation”. Well, when it became VERY CLEAR that the theory of evolution was on it’s death bed and REAL scientists began to question it..the pink slips started flowing and the funding dried up. Don’t need anyone questioning the status quo. Evolution is the ONLY support structure for the jargon being taught in todays schools. Guess what happens when that support begins to erode at a rapid pace? PEOPLE BEGIN TO NOTICE. You know evolution is DEAD when it’s most ardent defenders resort to “name calling” when it becomes evident that their precious religion of evolution is being systematicaly DESTROYED by real scientific observation. They WILL NOT debate ANYONE who confronts their illusionary myth.
In The Beginning, GOD……………
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:54pmI don‘t suppose you can name any of these REAL scientists that you’re talking about? Theory of evolution on it’s DEATH BED? Oh really?
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 7:23pmAmen! and SIMPLE — yes:
http://www.dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com
Book: “Scientists Who Believe”
Report Post »eaglesview
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:14pmWith all of the global warming, Al Gore, ginned up scientists reports, what should be expected ?.
Report Post »Crap in begets crap out, and skepticism about the information.
binge_thinker
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 2:01pmGod and science are quite compatible.
Report Post »http://www.godandscience.org/
TH30PH1LUS
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:13pmThe scientific community has been subject to politics and corruption http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Science-Guides/dp/089526031X
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:12pmThe ultimate irony of that graph is that it does not have standard error bars.
Report Post »TOMSERVO
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:17pmThat’s because it is not a bar graph.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:21pmAnd the fact that they dichotomize their subjects into arbitrarily concrete categories (“liberal”, “moderate”, “conservative”). One can be strongly liberal or conservative or weakly so – there is a continuum of this variable that is being collapsed into a single category. This necessarily introduces error into the measurement which cannot be accounted for by multiple regression.
Plus, they don’t report the coefficients or significance values? What is the N? Degrees of freedom? Gosh darn sociology and your pseudo-scientific approach to research.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:21pm@TOM
Report Post »lol, I really hope that was a joke.
TOMSERVO
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:44pmYes it was a freakin joke. The point is that you can click on the link and read the whole 20+ page study yourself to answer most of these questions that you are posing as if they didn’t exist. For example, all of the standard error values are in the table on the page after that graph. The methodology and units for all the graphs are carefully explained.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on March 30, 2012 at 2:24amI’m sure the study itself reported all of these values, I’m hounding the Blaze for not reporting them.
Report Post »wolverine
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:12pmTrue science is the truth. I don’t trust scientists particularly those with an agenda. The old is that figures don’t lie but liars figure
Report Post »Link8on
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:45pmAnything that improves
1 Life
2 Liberty and the
3 Pursuit of happiness
by the Masses will be likely to gain trust.
Therefore, anything that detracts from the key 3 will lose trust.
Report Post »Higher taxes detract from all 3.
When science promotes higher taxes, trust in it will go down.
When science promotes more regulations, like from the EPA or dept of Education, trust in it will go down.
krod2516
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:09pmYou can only lie so much before your not trusted.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:33pmi dont know about that. religion has been around a long time…
Report Post »Thane36425
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:09pmWhat’s happening is that Conservatives can see through the sloppy science that goes on these days. From Global Warming to brain science studies, the methodology and experiment design is frequently so flawed and badly done that a freshman science student can spot the flaws. Perhaps it is because Conservatives oppose the laws and regulations based on this flawed science that causes the lack of trust in the scientific community, though not in science itself. Liberals, on the other hand, support these programs and resent any critical analysis of them.
Report Post »grickm
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:08pmThe answer is in this article but what it says is the primary reason is nonsense. I have not lost faith in science, I have lost faith in people claiming to be scientists but know the answer they want before starting the observations. That’s not science, it’s political science. A true scientist may think he knows the answer, but is willing to accept an alternative if observation leads there.
I blame the leftists/progressives who have been working to weaken our morals for 100 years.
Report Post »stifroc
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:23pmVery well said sir. I think that is the heart of the conservatives viewpoint on science. “We don’t distrust or deny science, we distrust those who claim to be scientists”
Conservative think tanks and Fox are not to blame for our distrust of science and the article claims. Our distrust is from 50 years of exposed bogus scientific claims. Everything from Cholesterol, the rain forests, global cooling, global warming, red meat, fish, red wine, cheese, eggs and all the way to bottled water…. *gasp for breath*… all of these things have either been debunked or turned 180 degrees from what they said about it 10 years ago. As if we wouldn’t notice or remember.
Science has become the search for what ever fact is receiving funding… not truth.
Report Post »red1
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:59pmI agree. My trust in science has not changed. The vast amounts of pseudo science offered by the Academy, which we all know is dominated by liberals, who often subvert science to fit their political agendas, has just forced me to be skeptical of anything I am told is truth. Skepticism is afterall a hallmark of the scientific method.
Report Post »ibanrfknm
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:07pmModerates fell off before conservatives and remain just as skeptical.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:04pmWell considering all the lies and psydo science .. those who really want to be informed must sift through all the BULL! LIberals believe what they are told .. Conservatives want proof.
Report Post »Hcube-TheMan
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:13pmAgreed, it is hard to trust things when you know they have an agenda.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:16pmWell, the underlying problem with this study is that it’s done by a sociologist. Sociology = peudo-science
But let’s not fool ourselves, conservatives want proof? And yet they’re nearly all christian? (i.e. based on FAITH) Don’t flatter yourself.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:16pmConservatives are more discerning – and say “wait a minute, that doesn’t seem right” and use experience, reason and logical, applying critial thinking skills. Where as libs think if it feels right and I like it it must be true and if you dare not believe you must be just stupid, not sure why, can’t defend why I believe what I do but you are just stupid ….(think of the extremely intellectual arguments put forth by encinomoron for example)
Report Post »SoupSammich
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 6:20pmWell said- I have no issues with peer reviewed science, not propaganda for another grant and keeping the elite lefties in power as an underlying end result. Why the need to photo shop polar bears to sell global warming change stuff? Peer reviewed and general consensus would help.
Report Post »