The Growing Disbelief in Evolution Among Republicans

[CynthiaCypher]

I sympathize with that on one level, but on the other, there are facts about the world that cannot be denied. If we start denying evolution that would hamper our efforts at things like medical research.And I wonder, if they feel that their way of life is threatened by facts we learn about the world, why ought it be protected? Or, why should we support it being protected? That being said, I do agree that the commentary directed to evolution deniers could be less acerbic and more focused on presenting the scientific model and attendant evidence.

That is exactly why science should never become a politicized issue, but somehow it as become just that, by both those on the left and those on the right. They are both in their own ways impeding scientific and technological progress. Fundamentalist Christians are not being educated that science is not the enemy, they are being preached at by those whom they consider wrong that they must accept the values of their enemies and become like them because science supports atheism and liberalism (which it doesn't). This is why they distrust and reject this.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I am not sure that it is possible but, I am interested -

If you are a person who believes in the theory of evolution and also finds those that do not are simpletons or some of the other invective used to describe either Republicans or religious believers, I would like to engage in some kind of dialogue.

Originally, I wrote:
I suspect that Conservatives and Republicans are simply tired of having the notion of a strictly Accidental; Mechanical; Unfree; Random Universe where Nothing has any Meaning Whatsoever, being shoved down their throats.
As unappealing as it is to those who insist that the Universe is Meaningless and that Man is nothing more than a animal slave to random bacteria and cosmic radiation, the idea of an Ordered, Rational Universe where Man does, indeed, have Free Will seems a far more attractive alternative than the mechanistic Nothingness that is "Evolution."

If you are convinced of the scientific validity of evolution to the negation of G-d or religious views on Creation and Life then -
Do You believe that the Universe is Accidental; Mechanical; Unfree; and Random where "Meaning" is strictly subjective? Evolution is all random chance? There is no objective meaning to anything? Any or all of the above?
Would you also then accede to the logical corollary that Man; homo sapien, must be a "slave" to his biology, emotions, brain activity, etc. where again, objectively speaking, random bacteria or even a rock has as much meaning, significance, and "purpose" as does Man?

If you do believe this, could you explain why?
If you do not believe this could you explain why not in the face of your belief in the macro and micro evolution of Life and Man?

Anyone?

 

[Ouroboros]

There are still people who reject that the Earth is spherical.

One of my sons had a presentation in school a few days ago. During the Q&A he asked for hands up for how many knew (or believed) that Earth is revolving around the Sun. Only half the class raised their hands...

 

[brokensymmetry]

I am not sure that it is possible but, I am interested -

If you are a person who believes in the theory of evolution and also finds those that do not are simpletons or some of the other invective used to describe either Republicans or religious believers, I would like to engage in some kind of dialogue.

Originally, I wrote:
I suspect that Conservatives and Republicans are simply tired of having the notion of a strictly Accidental; Mechanical; Unfree; Random Universe where Nothing has any Meaning Whatsoever, being shoved down their throats.
As unappealing as it is to those who insist that the Universe is Meaningless and that Man is nothing more than a animal slave to random bacteria and cosmic radiation, the idea of an Ordered, Rational Universe where Man does, indeed, have Free Will seems a far more attractive alternative than the mechanistic Nothingness that is "Evolution."

If you are convinced of the scientific validity of evolution to the negation of G-d or religious views on Creation and Life then -
Do You believe that the Universe is Accidental; Mechanical; Unfree; and Random where "Meaning" is strictly subjective? Evolution is all random chance? There is no objective meaning to anything? Any or all of the above?
Would you also then accede to the logical corollary that Man; homo sapien, must be a "slave" to his biology, emotions, brain activity, etc. where again, objectively speaking, random bacteria or even a rock has as much meaning, significance, and "purpose" as does Man?

If you do believe this, could you explain why?
If you do not believe this could you explain why not in the face of your belief in the macro and micro evolution of Life and Man?

Anyone?

I don't see why any of that matters though. Evolution is shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone can dislike the fact that the earth orbits the sun, that the sun itself is a part of a galaxy which is part of a cluster of galaxies and so on. To that I have to say, too bad. If your view of the world can't integrate into it facts about the world you have a poor model that ought to be disregarded by rational people.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I don't see why any of that matters though. Evolution is shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone can dislike the fact that the earth orbits the sun, that the sun itself is a part of a galaxy which is part of a cluster of galaxies and so on. To that I have to say, too bad. If your view of the world can't integrate into it facts about the world you have a poor model that ought to be disregarded by rational people.

Okay.
I'll take the "it doesn't matter" as a "no, I'm not interested in discussing my beliefs."
However, it would then follow that your parochial definition of yourself as one of the "rational people" should be looked at with some dubiety.
It has been my experience that rational people tend to discuss different points of view.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Okay.
I'll take the "it doesn't matter" as a "no, I'm not interested in discussing my beliefs."
However, it would then follow that your parochial definition of yourself as one of the "rational people" should be looked at with some dubiety.
It has been my experience that rational people tend to discuss different points of view.

I don't mind discussing my views on that at all. I just don't think it has *any* bearing on the truth of evolution, or whether or not a rational person ought to accept it. I think we all ought to attempt to be rational, though we all, myself included, fall short of that. If we are clear on that at the outset I can provide my opinions. This is akin to discussing how I feel about the fact that the earth orbits the sun, how we don't seem to occupy a special place in the universe and so on. Those facts are not up for debate but I can certainly give my reaction to them.

As far as the status of the universe as designed or not, I am not sure. In the end we ask these questions, why, how, from where, and so on, but there is a bottom somewhere. I am not sure where the bottom is, but it is somewhere. Why does anything exist at all, including spacetime, fields, potentials, energy... anything and not nothing? I don't know. I am not sure the question even makes any sense or not. I suppose I doubt there is an intentional agent involved in it because all the intentional agents I know are embodied and have neural networks that are involved in producing intentions, thoughts and beliefs about the world. Whatever could be 'behind it' is something I am not cognitively equipped to handle.

As for the rest, a person seems to be a complicated product of biology and environment. IT's complicated enough so that even if we don't have free will it certainly seems like it. If it seems like it enough, I don't think it really matters if we 'really' have it in the end. The fact that life has changed so radically for humans over the past few hundred years is evidence to me that environment matters, knowledge matters and so on. As far as meaning goes, I don't know. I do what I am driven to do, what I like to do, what I have preferences for. There are people I care very deeply about, and it doesn't matter to me if that is biologically driven in the end or not-- it doesn't change the fact that I do care, that I do find great pleasure in some things, and so on.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I don't mind discussing my views on that at all. I just don't think it has *any* bearing on the truth of evolution, or whether or not a rational person ought to accept it. I think we all ought to attempt to be rational, though we all, myself included, fall short of that. If we are clear on that at the outset I can provide my opinions. This is akin to discussing how I feel about the fact that the earth orbits the sun, how we don't seem to occupy a special place in the universe and so on. Those facts are not up for debate but I can certainly give my reaction to them.

As far as the status of the universe as designed or not, I am not sure. In the end we ask these questions, why, how, from where, and so on, but there is a bottom somewhere. I am not sure where the bottom is, but it is somewhere. Why does anything exist at all, including spacetime, fields, potentials, energy... anything and not nothing? I don't know. I am not sure the question even makes any sense or not. I suppose I doubt there is an intentional agent involved in it because all the intentional agents I know are embodied and have neural networks that are involved in producing intentions, thoughts and beliefs about the world. Whatever could be 'behind it' is something I am not cognitively equipped to handle.

As for the rest, a person seems to be a complicated product of biology and environment. IT's complicated enough so that even if we don't have free will it certainly seems like it. If it seems like it enough, I don't think it really matters if we 'really' have it in the end. The fact that life has changed so radically for humans over the past few hundred years is evidence to me that environment matters, knowledge matters and so on. As far as meaning goes, I don't know. I do what I am driven to do, what I like to do, what I have preferences for. There are people I care very deeply about, and it doesn't matter to me if that is biologically driven in the end or not-- it doesn't change the fact that I do care, that I do find great pleasure in some things, and so on.

Thank you.
And, thusly, you do not fit my criteria that I described above as one who is hostile to the ideas of a Creator or "Intelligent Design" due to your assertive belief in evolution.
Okay.

However, just to further my queries - I would question strongly connecting "Man" and our emotions and thoughts and actions to your idea that " life has changed so radically for humans over the past few hundred years is evidence to me that environment matters, knowledge matters and so on."
Purely based on history, it seems that "Man" is still mostly preoccupied with the urges towards sex, lies and power with all of their other attendant "virtues" as was Man of three or four thousand years ago.
The Romans were clever at inventing concrete and certain battle techniques.
The force multiplier of mankind makes us clever at inventing more complex toys.
However, the basic biology, emotions. and intellect appear relatively unchanged.
In other words, the "environment" does not seem to have made a more advanced monkey - just one that has learned how to push computer buttons to express desires and emotions.

 

[Alceste]

I am not sure that it is possible but, I am interested -

If you are a person who believes in the theory of evolution and also finds those that do not are simpletons or some of the other invective used to describe either Republicans or religious believers, I would like to engage in some kind of dialogue.

Originally, I wrote:
I suspect that Conservatives and Republicans are simply tired of having the notion of a strictly Accidental; Mechanical; Unfree; Random Universe where Nothing has any Meaning Whatsoever, being shoved down their throats.
As unappealing as it is to those who insist that the Universe is Meaningless and that Man is nothing more than a animal slave to random bacteria and cosmic radiation, the idea of an Ordered, Rational Universe where Man does, indeed, have Free Will seems a far more attractive alternative than the mechanistic Nothingness that is "Evolution."

If you are convinced of the scientific validity of evolution to the negation of G-d or religious views on Creation and Life then -
Do You believe that the Universe is Accidental; Mechanical; Unfree; and Random where "Meaning" is strictly subjective? Evolution is all random chance? There is no objective meaning to anything? Any or all of the above?
Would you also then accede to the logical corollary that Man; homo sapien, must be a "slave" to his biology, emotions, brain activity, etc. where again, objectively speaking, random bacteria or even a rock has as much meaning, significance, and "purpose" as does Man?

If you do believe this, could you explain why?
If you do not believe this could you explain why not in the face of your belief in the macro and micro evolution of Life and Man?

Anyone?

I pretty much feel the way you've described, with a few minor niggles about your phrasing.

I can't answer your question why, though. I've always been an empirical naturalist. I've never been drawn to any kind of religious impulse. I approach life as a fantastic adventure, part of which is learning as much as I can about the world and the universe during my limited time to explore it.

A scientific world view suits me for the same reason I like watching and reading mysteries. The detective starts with nothing but a hunch, collects clues, and pieces them all together to prove beyond any reasonable doubt "whodunnit".

What's not to like?

Basically, religion bores me because it offers my mind nothing to do. There's nothing to figure out, no mystery to solve. Nothing to learn, unless you're really into memorizing scripture or something. And there are no "clues". You just accept whatever it is that your religion tells you to accept, or find some other religion.

You can ask my family - I've never been a person who readily accepts anything I'm told, by anyone.

Why? I was born this way. Some people have to be, it seems. We should all be grateful some people are, or we'd all be waiting for a passing prophet to cure us of blindness and disease instead of just popping over to see the doctor.

To your question "why", if you believer in a creator God, your answer is that this is the way She made us. I will leave you to mull over Her ultimate purpose.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I pretty much feel the way you've described, with a few minor niggles about your phrasing.

I can't answer your question why, though. I've always been an empirical naturalist. I've never been drawn to any kind of religious impulse. I approach life as a fantastic adventure, part of which is learning as much as I can about the world and the universe during my limited time to explore it.

A scientific world view suits me for the same reason I like watching and reading mysteries. The detective starts with nothing but a hunch, collects clues, and pieces them all together to prove beyond any reasonable doubt "whodunnit".

What's not to like?

Basically, religion bores me because it offers my mind nothing to do. There's nothing to figure out, no mystery to solve. Nothing to learn, unless you're really into memorizing scripture or something. And there are no "clues". You just accept whatever it is that your religion tells you to accept, or find some other religion.

You can ask my family - I've never been a person who readily accepts anything I'm told, by anyone.

Why? I was born this way. Some people have to be, it seems. We should all be grateful some people are, or we'd all be waiting for a passing prophet to cure us of blindness and disease instead of just popping over to see the doctor.

To your question "why", if you believer in a creator God, your answer is that this is the way She made us. I will leave you to mull over Her ultimate purpose.

Thank you.
This is great (and it also belies your somewhat dismissive or snarky tone regarding those who question evolution).

The fact is, most of my fellow Orthodox Jews, and many other religious folk I have met in my brief sojourn on this Earth, are religious truth seekers who spend a lot of time - more than I do - trying to figure things out; trying to solve the mysteries; and trying to explore the fantastic adventure that is Life.
We try and memorize things in order than we don't have to keep on trying to find the reference point.
This is true of any pursuit from ditch digging to creating computer programs to quantum physics.

The wonderful thing is that Science comes from religion - specifically Judaism and Christianity with a bit of Islam thrown in to boot!
G-d; the Torah; and the Jews; and then Islam and Christianity, told us that we live in an Ordered Universe, not the random, ever changing, incomprehensible World of the pagans and the Pantheons of gods.
G-d told us that there is Meaning to this Order and that His Laws are The Laws of the Universe.
So Jews, Muslims, and Christians specifically, wanted to know Why and How this Ordered Universe worked.
They invented the Scientific Method of repeatable experimentation.
The rest of the world, from Asia to the Greeks to the Norse to the Africans to the other Native Peoples of the world, based their "science" on philosophy and speculation.
Science was invented by those who believed that G-d Created and Ordered This World; This Universe.
We live in a "rational" Universe.
Which, for most religious folk I know, makes "religion" very exciting and interesting.

 

[metis]

This is most likely true.
However, due to my deliberate discussions with almost everyone I meet - in the street; in the store; at a public meeting; on the elevator; in a waiting room; with the people I deal with on almost any level, I don't find that religious people are nearly as likely to denigrate secularism as are secular people to denigrate "religious" people for their perceived "anti-science" opinions.
I, personally, get a pass from these kind of folk because 1), I am an obviously an Orthodox Jew and in the name of political correctness they don't want to offend me; and 2) because I am a very gregarious non threatening kind of guy who does not let people offend me.
And, I do, indeed, walk around replying "Thank G-d, Life is beautiful all the time" when people say to me "how are you?" This tends to throw even the most cynical folk "right off their French fried Lobster" (to quote the original Hawkeye Pierce in the original MASH.)

Is it kosher to even write "French fried lobster"???

 

[Alceste]

Thank you.
This is great (and it also belies your somewhat dismissive or snarky tone regarding those who question evolution).

The fact is, most of my fellow Orthodox Jews, and many other religious folk I have met in my brief sojourn on this Earth, are religious truth seekers who spend a lot of time - more than I do - trying to figure things out; trying to solve the mysteries; and trying to explore the fantastic adventure that is Life.
We try and memorize things in order than we don't have to keep on trying to find the reference point.
This is true of any pursuit from ditch digging to creating computer programs to quantum physics.

The wonderful thing is that Science comes from religion - specifically Judaism and Christianity with a bit of Islam thrown in to boot!
G-d; the Torah; and the Jews; and then Islam and Christianity, told us that we live in an Ordered Universe, not the random, ever changing, incomprehensible World of the pagans and the Pantheons of gods.
G-d told us that there is Meaning to this Order and that His Laws are The Laws of the Universe.
So Jews, Muslims, and Christians specifically, wanted to know Why and How this Ordered Universe worked.
They invented the Scientific Method of repeatable experimentation.
The rest of the world, from Asia to the Greeks to the Norse to the Africans to the other Native Peoples of the world, based their "science" on philosophy and speculation.
Science was invented by those who believed that G-d Created and Ordered This World; This Universe.
We live in a "rational" Universe.
Which, for most religious folk I know, makes "religion" very exciting and interesting.

I completely disagree. There's no historical or evidentiary basis to assume science has any kind of symbiotic relationship with religion - especially theistic religion.

Monotheistic religion has been so much at odds with empirical naturalism that adherents have severely persecuted some of our greatest scientists in objection to their discoveries.

Giordani Bruno. Murdered for realizing the sun is a star and there may be other inhabited worlds in the universe.

Galileo Galilei. Sentenced to life imprisonment for observing that the sun revolves around the earth.

In theory heresy was the denial of some essential Christian doctrine, publicly and obstinately . In practice any deviation from the currently orthodox line could be judged heretical. By the fifth century there were over a hundred active statutes in the Empire concerning heresy. From St Augustine onward for well over a thousand years virtually all Christian theologians agreed that heretics should be persecuted, and most agreed that they should be killed. Heresy was explicitly identified as as akin to leprosy. It was a disease that threatened to destroy a healthy body of believers if they strayed from the Church's view of religious orthodoxy, just as leprosy was a disease that threatened the healthy bodies of individuals if they strayed from the Church's view of sexual orthodoxy.. Diseases like this had to be eradicated at all costs. St Thomas Aquinas thought it virtuous to burn heretics, and favoured the option of burning them alive. From around the turn of the millennium executing heretics became ever more common, and the grounds for doing so ever more unlikely. A group of Christians at Goslar in Germany who declined to kill chickens were executed for heresy in 1051.

The Christian Church and the Persecution of Heretics

 

[Father Heathen]

I didn't read through all 8 pages, and I'm sure someone has already asked this, but could it be that disbelief in evolution isn't growing in the party, but rather that the more sane and sensible ones are jumping ship?

 

[metis]

The fact is, most of my fellow Orthodox Jews, and many other religious folk I have met in my brief sojourn on this Earth, are religious truth seekers who spend a lot of time - more than I do - trying to figure things out; trying to solve the mysteries; and trying to explore the fantastic adventure that is Life.
We try and memorize things in order than we don't have to keep on trying to find the reference point.
This is true of any pursuit from ditch digging to creating computer programs to quantum physics.

The wonderful thing is that Science comes from religion - specifically Judaism and Christianity with a bit of Islam thrown in to boot!
G-d; the Torah; and the Jews; and then Islam and Christianity, told us that we live in an Ordered Universe, not the random, ever changing, incomprehensible World of the pagans and the Pantheons of gods.
G-d told us that there is Meaning to this Order and that His Laws are The Laws of the Universe.
So Jews, Muslims, and Christians specifically, wanted to know Why and How this Ordered Universe worked.
They invented the Scientific Method of repeatable experimentation.
The rest of the world, from Asia to the Greeks to the Norse to the Africans to the other Native Peoples of the world, based their "science" on philosophy and speculation.
Science was invented by those who believed that G-d Created and Ordered This World; This Universe.
We live in a "rational" Universe.
Which, for most religious folk I know, makes "religion" very exciting and interesting.

I don't have one single problem with you accepting all of the above, but I am far less certain of the accuracy of some of these statements. IOW, I'm not saying you're wrong-- I just don't know if you're right.

My approach is to go first with science regardless as to whether it fits into any paradigm I may lean towards, and then adjust the paradigm if necessary. For some, that may seem like I'm putting the cart (science) in front of the horse (my religious leanings), and that would be correct-- I do.

Therefore, I have to pass on trying to deal with most of the questions above simply because I don't know the answers, and any speculation on what they might be would be just that-- speculation. Therefore, the words you'll so often see coming from me is "I don't know".

Also, I probably look at various religions differently than you. I see them as generally honest attempts to try and understand that which is hard to understand, and I have no ability to tell how much within any religion is correct. OTOH, I do not claim any equivalency of these religions either. Thus you'll periodically see from me such "wisdom" like "Whatever is, is".

A third rather infamous quote you'll often see from me is "Whatever caused our universe/multiverse I call 'God', and pretty much leave it at that". Some say this is a cop-out. I agree, it is-- but I can't find a better alternative that better represents my drift.

Morally, is everything up for grabs? I do not believe so. There's something inside of us that pushes us in the direction of compassion and fairness, and some feel that there may be a "God gene" that's inside us that encourages us to go in this direction. I don't know if there is or isn't. But what I do know is that a young child has an attraction to Mom (and hopefully Dad and some others) that doesn't have to be taught, and Mom responds in kind and doesn't have to be taught that either.

Therefore, if we take this basic lesson of compassion and fairness, I tend to believe that most religions generally try to go in that direction, although sometimes people can get so far away from this most basic lesson that they may incorporate the opposite in some of their dogma.

Do I sound confused? I am-- I don't know "the answers".

Shabbat shalom

 

[metis]

I didn't read through all 8 pages, and I'm sure someone has already asked this, but could it be that disbelief in evolution isn't growing in the party, but rather that the more sane and sensible ones are jumping ship?

I would suggest that one doesn't "believe" in evolution any more than one would "believe" that 15 is a larger number than 5-- one either accepts it or they don't. The fact that evolution has been going on is not reliant upon one's belief. "Evolution" is simply change over time, and if we apply this to life forms, it means that eventually new species of life will possibly emerge, which we well know is true for a variety of reasons.

 

[Gordian Knot]

BrokenS said "To that I have to say, too bad. If your view of the world can't integrate into it facts about the world you have a poor model that ought to be disregarded by rational people."

Moishe said "I'll take the "it doesn't matter" as a "no, I'm not interested in discussing my beliefs." However, it would then follow that your parochial definition of yourself as one of the "rational people" should be looked at with some dubiety. It has been my experience that rational people tend to discuss different points of view."

This exchange, in general terms (i.e. not the two personal views themselves) is, in my opinion, why we are in such deep, deep trouble. I don't have much knowledge with the rest of the world - in America though, too many people have taken the following concept to the extreme of insanity:

The right to have one's own opinion has been perverted into a right to believe one's own opinion trumps any facts to the contrary. When one's opinion carries more weight in decision making than facts that prove your opinion is wrong, rational and irrational viewpoints suddenly carry the same weight.

This is, and has proven to be, a disaster for any attempt at reasonable dialogue.

 

[Desert Snake]

What's going on with these people?

"Significantly fewer Republicans believe in evolution than did so four years ago, setting them apart from Democrats and independents, according to a recent Pew Research Center study. But behind this finding is a puzzle: If the views of the overall public have remained steady, and there has been little change among people of other political affiliations, how does one account for the Republican numbers? Shouldn’t the marked drop in Republican believers cause a decline in the 60% of all adults who say humans have evolved over time?

​

What would explain the change in Republicans’ views on evolution?

The data on this question do not clearly point to any single explanation for the growing partisan gap in beliefs about evolution, and it’s possible that a combination of factors underlies this pattern."
source


​

Yo, you Republicans out there, care to explain?

People change parties, that's likely the answer.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I completely disagree. There's no historical or evidentiary basis to assume science has any kind of symbiotic relationship with religion - especially theistic religion.

I would humbly suggest you study the history of the "scientific method."

In a nutshell, you will find that this idea was formally invented by Muslim and Christian scholars and that ALL institutions of Higher Learning (universities) that encouraged the scientific method of understanding were founded by devout religionists again, first by Muslims, then by Christians.
You will find that the philosophy of verifiable, repeatable experimentation, ie: the scientific method, grew from the religious concept that G-d Created an Ordered Universe and that it was incumbent upon Man to discover and use the Laws that G-d had put in place to rule this Ordered Universe.

Monotheistic religion has been so much at odds with empirical naturalism that adherents have severely persecuted some of our greatest scientists in objection to their discoveries.

Again, please study history.
You will find that "empirical naturalism" or scientific "naturalism" was invented by Christian scholars for the same reasons as noted above.

Giordani Bruno. Murdered for realizing the sun is a star and there may be other inhabited worlds in the universe.

Galileo Galilei. Sentenced to life imprisonment for observing that the sun revolves around the earth.

I know I sound like a broken reed here but, really - study the real history of both Bruno and Galileo.

Again, in a nutshell, Bruno was all over the map as a "free thinker" who was religiously; politically; and philosophically involved deeply with enemies of the ruling Roman Catholic Church and who made some particular enemies within the hierarchy who wanted to take him down. They did.

Galileo is even more straightforward. He was a friend of the Pope and the Pope asked him not to deliberately and literally refute and insult some Church scholars and their doctrines in his published works. Galileo agreed to not do so.
Galileo abnegated his agreements and attacked both the Church and certain scholars.
This ****** off the Pope.
And, the rest is history.

People tend to ignore the political ramifications of the disagreements between Church doctrines that were firmly rooted in Aristotle and Greek philosophies ("science") and Church scientists who, step by step, by using the scientific method invented by the Christian Church, refuted or altered these thousand year old philosophies.
The examples you mention and others, were almost 100% personal and political in nature and had little to do with the core beliefs of Christianity in terms of the bible and G-d.

In the time period you cite regarding Bruno; Galileo; and the Inquisition, was the time of the Great European Christian Sectarian Civil War, commonly called "the Reformation."
It lasted about 300 years; slaughtered tens of millions of mostly European Christians; devastated Europe from Scandinavia to Italia and Ireland to Moscow; took its internecine battles all over the world; and was fought by every possible faction, all against each other, including their own faction, to the point that people were summarily murdered for expressing a thought with which someone else disagreed.
It is, by the way, exactly what is going on today in the Great Muslim Arab Sectarian Civil War.

 

[Moishe3rd]

BrokenS said "To that I have to say, too bad. If your view of the world can't integrate into it facts about the world you have a poor model that ought to be disregarded by rational people."

Moishe said "I'll take the "it doesn't matter" as a "no, I'm not interested in discussing my beliefs." However, it would then follow that your parochial definition of yourself as one of the "rational people" should be looked at with some dubiety. It has been my experience that rational people tend to discuss different points of view."

This exchange, in general terms (i.e. not the two personal views themselves) is, in my opinion, why we are in such deep, deep trouble. I don't have much knowledge with the rest of the world - in America though, too many people have taken the following concept to the extreme of insanity:

The right to have one's own opinion has been perverted into a right to believe one's own opinion trumps any facts to the contrary. When one's opinion carries more weight in decision making than facts that prove your opinion is wrong, rational and irrational viewpoints suddenly carry the same weight.

This is, and has proven to be, a disaster for any attempt at reasonable dialogue.

I agree with you.
However, I suspect that you and I might be at opposite ends of the spectrum as to what are the "facts" of the matter.
I refer you to my previous response to "Alceste."
She believes that the "facts" demonstrate that: "There's no historical or evidentiary basis to assume science has any kind of symbiotic relationship with religion - especially theistic religion."
I would guess that she bases her belief on apocryphal or populist ideas that those opposed to religion claim are "historical facts."
However, one can actually investigate historical facts such as whether or not Christian scholars actually invented what is today called the "scientific method" or even "empirical naturalism."

I would humbly suggest that one could equally investigate the "historical facts" regarding the theory of evolution.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again, please study history.

Take of the blinders, read this, and get back to us when you tire of dismissing much of history.

 

[1robin]

"Science has become a shame...."? Looking at the history of science, particularly in the period of
Darwin & later, science has always been victim to the problems you state. Big deal....it's productive
in spite of human frailties, which will explain some bone headed escapades, but disprove nothing.
Did you perhaps mean "sham" instead of "shame"?

The Government produces stuff in spite of being corrupted. So what, you throw or steal enough money at something and things get done, including horrible things like over regulation, Obama care, fast and furious, wire tapping, etc. The same goes for science for every great picture of a quasar put out by the Hubble you get cracked egg universe theory. The point is that grants, tenure, and publishing cliques have corrupted science. That does not mean some good science is not produced and in the application field where things have to work a lot of great science is performed. The problems are mostly in the theoretical side where all the anti-biblical arguments come from.

A famous saying says no straight think was ever made out of the crooked timber of men. Theoreticians are the most crooked of all.