The Growing Disbelief in Evolution Among Republicans

[brokensymmetry]

The implication in your dismissal is that historical figures do not believe what they claim to believe.
That claim can be made about anything and anyone.
However, all we have is an historical record.
The historical record indicates that these same scientists were deeply believing Christians and theologians.

I never said or implied they didn't believe. Newton was a committed Christian, as was Faraday. You could name many such examples. I don't see how that is relevant though. Going from stating that to assuming that Christianity was someone a necessary piece in the development of modern science is a huge leap.

 

[metis]

Uh, yeah, no ****. So, what does this have to do with my post?

Sorry, but it appears I must have missed the intent of your post.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I never said or implied they didn't believe. Newton was a committed Christian, as was Faraday. You could name many such examples. I don't see how that is relevant though. Going from stating that to assuming that Christianity was someone a necessary piece in the development of modern science is a huge leap.

Well, there you go.
I agree completely.
I am not much for speculation as to "what could have been," although I do love science fiction.
I am more of a student of history and I am interested in what actually did happen.
And, whatever one wishes, it is irrefutable that Christianity WAS instrumental in the development of the scientific method and modern science.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Well, there you go.
I agree completely.
I am not much for speculation as to "what could have been," although I do love science fiction.
I am more of a student of history and I am interested in what actually did happen.
And, whatever one wishes, it is irrefutable that Christianity WAS instrumental in the development of the scientific method and modern science.

You havent' demonstrated that Christianity played any role in developing science, only that many of the early scientists in the modern sense happened to be Christians. Correlation doesn't demonstrate causation.

 

[metis]

Actually Buddhism's approach is probably more compatible with science than any of the Abrahamics. It posits that one should basically not rely on hearsay information, test things out ourselves if possible and do so objectively, go in the direction of the evidence and not on who said what, try connecting the dots by getting down to the nitty-gritty and then working our way up, understand cause-and-effect and then apply it ("dependence rising"), realize that all things change over time ("impermanence"), etc.

The most basic concept of evolution (all things change over time) has been a part of that approach for roughly 2500 years now.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Actually Buddhism's approach is probably more compatible with science than any of the Abrahamics. It posits that one should basically not rely on hearsay information, test things out ourselves if possible and do so objectively, go in the direction of the evidence and not on who said what, try connecting the dots by getting down to the nitty-gritty and then working our way up, understand cause-and-effect and then apply it ("dependence rising"), realize that all things change over time ("impermanence"), etc.

The most basic concept of evolution (all things change over time) has been a part of that approach for roughly 2500 years now.

Yeah but Buddhism failed to spawn modern science. It may be that trying to come up with scientific thought in the framework of religious belief will only go so far. After all, what if you think the evidence would best fit a model that goes against the religion that sponsored the exercise in the first place? At some point people became willing to shelve it to pursue the evidence.

 

[Moishe3rd]

You havent' demonstrated that Christianity played any role in developing science, only that many of the early scientists in the modern sense happened to be Christians. Correlation doesn't demonstrate causation.

"many?"; "early scientists?;" "happened to be?"

What happened to nearly ALL in terms of Islam and Christianity?
And what happened to my beloved "scientific method" in terms of "developing science."
And, "happened to be" is neither correlation nor causation.

I really don't understand the objections.
But - okay, I'll speculate.
Christian scientists who invented the scientific method could have somehow done this as aboriginal Australians totally devoid of any notions of Christianity.
Why not?

 

[brokensymmetry]

"many?"; "early scientists?;" "happened to be?"

What happened to nearly ALL in terms of Islam and Christianity?
And what happened to my beloved "scientific method" in terms of "developing science."
And, "happened to be" is neither correlation nor causation.

I really don't understand the objections.
But - okay, I'll speculate.
Christian scientists who invented the scientific method could have somehow done this as aboriginal Australians totally devoid of any notions of Christianity.
Why not?

Yes they could have. The essential elements were requisite resources to pursue scientific inquiry, and the requisite political freedom to get it going. Greeks were the first to form scientific insights and they did so in a polytheistic environment. I don't think that matters. They were still somehow able to do the abstract thinking necessary to estimate the size of the earth, the distance from the earth to the sun and the moon. Systematic thinkers can arise from any culture. Whether or not they can have a lasting impact depends on other factors.

 

[Alceste]

I don't understand...
Here are just three from the previously cited Wiki article.
I would suggest you read the article to gather more data.

Robert Grosseteste (/ˈɡroʊstɛst/ grohs-test) or Grossetete (/ˈɡroʊsteɪt/ grohs-tayt;[2] c. 1175 – 9 October 1253) was an English statesman, scholastic philosopher, theologian, scientist and Bishop of Lincoln. He was born of humble parents at Stradbroke in Suffolk. A.C. Crombie calls him "the real founder of the tradition of scientific thought in medieval Oxford, and in some ways, of the modern English intellectual tradition".

Pūr Sinɑʼ (Persian ابن سینا or ابو علی* سینا or پور سينا Pur-e Sina; [ˈpuːr ˈsiːnɑː] "son of Sina"; August c. 980 – June 1037), commonly known as Ibn Sīnā, or in Arabic writing Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sīnā[2] (Arabic أبو علي الحسين بن عبد الله بن سين&#1575 or by his Latinized name Avicenna, was a Persian[3][4][5][6] polymath, who wrote almost 450 works on a wide range of subjects, of which around 240 have survived. In particular, 150 of his surviving works concentrate on philosophy and 40 of them concentrate on medicine.[7]

His most famous works are The Book of Healing, a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, and The Canon of Medicine,[8] which was a standard medical text at many medieval universities.[9] The Canon of Medicine was used as a textbook in the universities of Montpellier and Leuven as late as 1650.[10] Ibn Sīnā's Canon of Medicine provides an overview of all aspects of medicine according to the principles of Galen (and Hippocrates).[11][12]

His corpus also includes writing on philosophy, astronomy, alchemy, geology, psychology, Islamic theology, logic, mathematics, physics, as well as poetry.[13] He is regarded as the most famous and influential polymath of the Islamic Golden Age.[14]

Roger Bacon[edit]
Roger Bacon was inspired by the writings of Grosseteste. In his account of a method, Bacon described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification. He recorded the way he had conducted his experiments in precise detail, perhaps with the idea that others could reproduce and independently test his results.

About 1256 he joined the Franciscan Order and became subject to the Franciscan statute forbidding Friars from publishing books or pamphlets without specific approval. After the accession of Pope Clement IV in 1265, the Pope granted Bacon a special commission to write to him on scientific matters. In eighteen months he completed three large treatises, the Opus Majus, Opus Minus, and Opus Tertium which he sent to the Pope.[35] William Whewell has called Opus Majus at once the Encyclopaedia and Organon of the 13th century.[36]

Part I (pp. 1–22) treats of the four causes of error: authority, custom, the opinion of the unskilled many, and the concealment of real ignorance by a pretense of knowledge.
Part VI (pp. 445–477) treats of experimental science, domina omnium scientiarum. There are two methods of knowledge: the one by argument, the other by experience. Mere argument is never sufficient; it may decide a question, but gives no satisfaction or certainty to the mind, which can only be convinced by immediate inspection or intuition, which is what experience gives.
Experimental science, which in the Opus Tertium (p. 46) is distinguished from the speculative sciences and the operative arts, is said to have three great prerogatives over all sciences:
It verifies their conclusions by direct experiment;
It discovers truths which they could never reach;
It investigates the secrets of nature, and opens to us a knowledge of past and future.
Roger Bacon illustrated his method by an investigation into the nature and cause of the rainbow, as a specimen of inductive research.[37]

So your basic position is that during the dark ages, when the Catholic Church exercised total control over scholarly pursuit in Europe and maintained that control through the torture and execution of anyone who questioned Catholic doctrine, the only people who published anything of historical significance in Europe were somehow affiliated with the church?

OK, I accept that claim, but I disagree that it is evidence that science (which is more or less synonymous with both empirical naturalism and the scientific method) is founded on Christian theology. Rather, I take it as evidence that the philosophical heirs of Plato, Aristotle, Democritus et al had only one way to get any work done without being flayed alive for it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sorry, but it appears I must have missed the intent of your post.

The OP claimed that the number of those who reject the theory of evolution within the Republican party is glowing. I'm asking if it's possible that the number isn't so much growing as the number of those who accept the theory is shrinking due to them leaving the party, leaving more of the fundamentalist fringe behind.

 

[metis]

Yeah but Buddhism failed to spawn modern science. It may be that trying to come up with scientific thought in the framework of religious belief will only go so far. After all, what if you think the evidence would best fit a model that goes against the religion that sponsored the exercise in the first place? At some point people became willing to shelve it to pursue the evidence.

Buddhism developed in areas whereas they typically didn't have political sovereignty, also only in areas that had good education but only for a very small percent of the population, and also in those countries that were generally resource poor. HHDL himself said that Tibet's relative isolation very much hurt its move towards modern scientific thought.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The OP claimed that the number of those who reject the theory of evolution within the Republican party is glowing. I'm asking if it's possible that the number isn't so much growing as the number of those who accept the theory is shrinking due to them leaving the party.

A quick look at the numbers supplied in the chart seem to support this idea. If the sample sizes for each political designation are representative of the population-at-large for each year, then it would appear that most of the increase in GOP creationism are due to Republicans who believe in evolution now classifying themselves as Independent. This seems to correspond with the political climate, and what other polls reflect, over the last 4-5 years.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Buddhism developed in areas whereas they typically didn't have political sovereignty, also only in areas that had good education but only for a very small percent of the population, and also in those countries that were generally resource poor. HHDL himself said that Tibet's relative isolation very much hurt its move towards modern scientific thought.

yes, but I see no reason to think that religion *at all* plays a roll in developing scientific thinking. I doubt very much Buddhism would have spawned more, or less! science had it been the predominate religion in Europe at the time.

 

[metis]

yes, but I see no reason to think that religion *at all* plays a roll in developing scientific thinking. I doubt very much Buddhism would have spawned more, or less! science had it been the predominate religion in Europe at the time.

Hard to say.

BTW, supposedly Einstein stated that if he had to observe one religion it would be Buddhism, but some doubt that he ever said such a thing. However, if you study his writings on such related matters, one can easily see traits of compatibility with basic dharma.

My only hesitation with the above is that how one approaches Buddhism can make a world of a difference: is the approach mainly religious or is it mainly philosophical? Generally speaking, the higher the education, the far more likely it'll be the latter.

If you haven't done so, it may be worth your while to take a careful look at dharma, and here's a good place to start: Buddhist Studies: Basic Teachings

 

[brokensymmetry]

Hard to say.

BTW, supposedly Einstein stated that if he had to observe one religion it would be Buddhism, but some doubt that he ever said such a thing. However, if you study his writings on such related matters, one can easily see traits of compatibility with basic dharma.

My only hesitation with the above is that how one approaches Buddhism can make a world of a difference: is the approach mainly religious or is it mainly philosophical? Generally speaking, the higher the education, the far more likely it'll be the latter.

If you haven't done so, it may be worth your while to take a careful look at dharma, and here's a good place to start: Buddhist Studies: Basic Teachings

I'm not very interested in delving deeply into Buddhist theology. I've done some general reading about it and that satiates my current curiosity. I don't think eastern religions are any deeper or better than western ones, though it seems to be a vogue in the west to think so. I'm not accusing you of this by the way, but it is my general observation that people are attracted to them, and I suspect in part because they don't see enough of it to see the potential ugly sides as they can readily observe in something like Christianity.

 

[Moishe3rd]

So your basic position is that during the dark ages, when the Catholic Church exercised total control over scholarly pursuit in Europe and maintained that control through the torture and execution of anyone who questioned Catholic doctrine, the only people who published anything of historical significance in Europe were somehow affiliated with the church?

OK, I accept that claim, but I disagree that it is evidence that science (which is more or less synonymous with both empirical naturalism and the scientific method) is founded on Christian theology. Rather, I take it as evidence that the philosophical heirs of Plato, Aristotle, Democritus et al had only one way to get any work done without being flayed alive for it.

I suspect that you still have some misconceptions here.
The "philosophical heirs of Plato, Aristotle, Democritus et al" were those dogmatic members of the Church that were trying to "flay alive" the more modern Christians who became scientists.
The main argument in terms of most of the "science" of Christians who opposed such people as Galileo, was that the pagan Aristotle's "scientific" view of the Universe was all the "science" that Christianity needed.
In other words, the belief in Aristotelian "science" by the Church was the enemy of those, such as Francis Bacon, who favored delving into repeatable, logical experimentation regarding the Laws of G-d's Creation.

 

[Alceste]

I suspect that you still have some misconceptions here.
The "philosophical heirs of Plato, Aristotle, Democritus et al" were those dogmatic members of the Church that were trying to "flay alive" the more modern Christians who became scientists.
The main argument in terms of most of the "science" of Christians who opposed such people as Galileo, was that the pagan Aristotle's "scientific" view of the Universe was all the "science" that Christianity needed.
In other words, the belief in Aristotelian "science" by the Church was the enemy of those, such as Francis Bacon, who favored delving into repeatable, logical experimentation regarding the Laws of G-d's Creation.

Sorry, are you under the impression that Plato and Aristotle advocated the supremacy of theistic doctrine and the torture and execution of heretics?

 

[Gordian Knot]

Interesting bit about the history of religion and science though it is my belief that all of this has nothing to do with current thinking among Republicans. I read a fascinating article some months ago that suggested that the Republicans that are rejecting science mostly are the college educated ones. (Did a quick look and could not immediately find the article).

Ergo ipso facto colombo oreo, the ones rejecting science are the ones who have had, in theory, access to actual science in their educations. Now why would this be?

In my personal opinion this has occurred because we in the U.S. have taken what was once one of our basic freedoms and perverted it into something it was never meant to be. Specifically Americans believe that everyone had a 'right' to their opinion. Which is true.

But that concept has been warped into the idea that someone's opinion transcends any evidence to the contrary. That is, when it comes to views, personal opinion trumps facts. This is why Republicans can see that a large majority of the world's scientists believe climate change is partly the fault of humanity pumping crap into the atmosphere, and they can summarily reject that opinion. They can because it is not what they want to believe.

This is why conservatives can pretend that creationism is a science, even though creationism follows none of the precepts of the scientific process. They can because that is what they want to believe.

A very wise man once said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts". Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We as a nation and as a society are doomed to fall into irrelevance as long as this betrayal of basic intelligence is allowed to continue.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Interesting bit about the history of religion and science though it is my belief that all of this has nothing to do with current thinking among Republicans. I read a fascinating article some months ago that suggested that the Republicans that are rejecting science mostly are the college educated ones. (Did a quick look and could not immediately find the article).

Ergo ipso facto colombo oreo, the ones rejecting science are the ones who have had, in theory, access to actual science in their educations. Now why would this be?

In my personal opinion this has occurred because we in the U.S. have taken what was once one of our basic freedoms and perverted it into something it was never meant to be. Specifically Americans believe that everyone had a 'right' to their opinion. Which is true.

But that concept has been warped into the idea that someone's opinion transcends any evidence to the contrary. That is, when it comes to views, personal opinion trumps facts. This is why Republicans can see that a large majority of the world's scientists believe climate change is partly the fault of humanity pumping crap into the atmosphere, and they can summarily reject that opinion. They can because it is not what they want to believe.

This is why conservatives can pretend that creationism is a science, even though creationism follows none of the precepts of the scientific process. They can because that is what they want to believe.

A very wise man once said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts". Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We as a nation and as a society are doomed to fall into irrelevance as long as this betrayal of basic intelligence is allowed to continue.

Interesting opinion...
Wong, but interesting... :tuna:

But seriously,
The difficulty, IMHO, is that people tend to create strawmen for the opposing side and then, knock them down.
You state "conservatives can pretend that creationism is a science," which has two strawmen involved.
One is that people believe your statement is true.
It's not and, not even the current question says that it is. You have extrapolated this opinion from your particular viewpoint on the question.
Secondly, the implication is that "unlike evolutionists where evolution is absolutely a science."
This is also untrue as, of course, there is no possible way to apply the scientific method of repeatable experimentation to the theory of evolution.
One is certainly free to extrapolate that gene patterns and physical characteristics have changed and mutated over different periods of time. Ergo, one chooses to extrapolate that, given enough time, Matter must have coalesced from Energy; Life must have mutated from non living matter; and higher functioning animal life must have mutated from lower functioning biological life; and that Man must have mutated from this animal life.
Peachy.
And, that has just about as much validity as if one claimed that an Alien Creator from another Universe created various aspects of Life in This Universe and tweaked the process over several billion years from time to time to get to homo sapiens...
The only difference is that one theory insists on Random Chance and Accident whereas the other claims that in order to create Order, intelligence must be involved.
(Now, of course, as I sure you are aware, it is a repeatable and measurable scientific fact that the Universe tends towards Entropy or disorder. Without outside influences imposing order, Everything decays and becomes random. Which leaves one wondering how a Random Universe became Ordered... scientifically speaking.)

Then, as you bring it up, there is the strawman of "global warming," conveniently renamed "climate change."
Your broad based opinion that "Republicans" summarily reject the opinion that "climate change is partly the fault of humanity pumping crap into the atmosphere" is silly.
The current "science" of "climate change" or whatever hysteria they are going to call it next, is not about the idea that "climate change is partly the fault of humanity pumping crap into the atmosphere." it is about the hysteria that claims if the United States of America does not shut down its Carbon emissions then, the Earth will warm; the seas will rise; and Everybody's Going to Die!!!
But - perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps this is not what Algore, the High Priest of the Baal of the Warming Glo, said.
Perhaps the "global warming scientists" of the late 90's and early 2000's did not claim that by the year 2010, snow and cold Winters would end in the mid northern hemisphere...
Perhaps I missed something.

Anyhoo... IMHO, you do your opinions no good by claiming YOUR opinions are Facts and THEIR opinions are "what they want to believe."
You first need to find out what THEIR opinions actually are and, what actual Facts support your opinions...
Nu?

 

[LuisDantas]

yes, but I see no reason to think that religion *at all* plays a roll in developing scientific thinking. I doubt very much Buddhism would have spawned more, or less! science had it been the predominate religion in Europe at the time.

Religion can certainly discourage or encourage scientific thinking and research.

I don't think that can be reliably traced to such umbrella terms as "Buddhism", though.