JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

OffTopic

Surf a Flood of random discussion.
Edited by Plasma Prestige: 7/14/2013 4:57:55 PM
45

A Reputation of Science Denial: The Republican Party

I realize that this forum is full of political monologues about the evils of [insert ideology here] or [insert political affiliation here], but I have not seen much attention given to an issue I feel is of crucial importance. The issue is the rampant denial and/or ignorance of science that is exhibited by Republicans in United States Congress. The two hot topics that manifest this most evidently are climate change measures and the teaching of evolution in schools. [b][u]Climate Change[/u][/b] I am not going to lay out the plentiful evidence for climate change in this thread. A good starting place for anyone genuinely interested in investigating the scientific evidence for climate change is [url=http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence]here.[/url] Put concisely, the earth's climate is changing in a way that is not explicable by natural fluctuations, humans are contributing to this change by the emission of greenhouse gases—principally carbon dioxide—into the atmosphere, and an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with both of these assertions. While it would completely unrealistic to expect a complete abandonment of fossil fuels to power our homes and cars in the foreseeable future, it is completely reasonable to implement measures that would utilize alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and fission, as well as regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. Yet, 90% of the Republican leadership denies the [i]existence[/i] manmade climate change. It is fairly obvious that the first step to solving a problem is recognizing that there is one. The Republicans in Congress have not even acknowledged manmade climate change. How can measures be passed? The existence of climate change is not up to debate on capitol hill; the only place for such a debate is within the climate scientist community, which has resoundingly advocated for measures that slow down the effects of manmade climate change. What should be up for debate is the precise measures that should be taken. But this is not the debate that is occurring in Congress, and if it does not start soon, we, as an entire civilization will face the consequences in the not-so-distant future. Warmer temperatures produce stronger hurricanes and more severe droughts; they also provide a better environment for the spread of many pathogens. The consequences of ignoring climate change are impossible to overplay at this stage. [b][u]Evolution[/u][/b] Again, I won't lay out the enormous amount of evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you are genuinely interested in viewing the evidence yourself, or simply understanding the theory better, [url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46]this[/url] is a good place to start. The majority of Republicans hold the creationist view (i.e., the earth is much younger than geological evidence suggests and evolution is false science). When it comes to this issue, Democrats are not so great either. In fact, the chasm between Republicans and Democrats is much less pronounced than it is with issues such as climate change, [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx]at least according to this Gallup study.[/url] Creationist policymakers insist on teaching such non-scientific nonsense to children in public schools by dedicating chapters and sections to the subject. Creationism is creeping its way into the science classroom. The consequences are clear: a disadvantaged group of future job seekers. In order to remain competitive for jobs, especially in science, children need to be taught science in the science classroom, not unsubstantiated religious dogma. [b][u]Why this is a Problem[/u][/b] The consequences of scientific illiteracy are severe, plain and simple. Perhaps a historical example will help drill this in. In the period from 800 - 1100 AD, Islam was enjoying a magnificent Golden Age. During this same period, Europe was disemboweling itself, still entrenched in the Dark Ages and centuries away from the birth of minds such as Voltaire, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. Yet, Baghdad was a virtual intellectual utopia, providing a fertile environment for the greatest minds of the day. Some of the greatest advances in medicine, astronomy, and mathematics were made here. In fact, the mathematics we call algebra was invented in the Islamic Golden Age, as algebra itself is an arabic word. This golden age came to an end when a Muslim cleric declared that manipulating numbers was the work of the devil. Practically single-handedly, this cleric destroyed scientific curiosity and discovery in the Muslim world, a consequence that the Muslim world has still not recovered from. If this Golden Age had persisted, the majority of Nobel prizes today would be held by Muslims without a doubt. As Americans, we should fear no less of an intellectual death. We must advocate for scientific literacy and policies that are informed by scientific evidence. Nothing less than the stake of our place on this blue planet and our intellectual capacity is at stake.

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

View Entire Topic
  • Straight up creationists are weird. Intelligent design mixes microevolution (which has good proof) with the universe having a beginning and therefore a creator (which also has good evidence), and is overall the more logical belief. Which proves to me again how I'm leaning towards being a conservative-libertarian. I like mixing views of both sides.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    3 Replies
    You are not allowed to view this content.
    ;
    preload icon
    preload icon
    preload icon