Why is the Right Wing Anti-Science?

[Subduction Zone]

You really should stop. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. As the figure shows the first step is to observe and formulate the questions. But the things observed are not scientific evidence. The scientific evidence must be gathered under controlled repeatable conditions. (Step four of the figure)

You can go away now. You don’t know what you are talking about.

LOL! That is the first step before one even forms a hypothesis, much less a theory. You are jumping into the game a long time after that. You appear to be desperate to defend science denial.

By the way, there is no one single "scientific method". but your abuse of your example demonstrates that you do not understand the scientific method either.

I like this one better. It is a bit more accurate since there are options along the way:

It is also a little clearer. The first step is never "question the theory". That would come much later. One may eventually question a theory, but first the theory or hypothesis has to be made.

 

[Shaul]

LOL! That is the first step before one even forms a hypothesis, much less a theory. You are jumping into the game a long time after that. You appear to be desperate to defend science denial.

By the way, there is no one single "scientific method". but your abuse of your example demonstrates that you do not understand the scientific method either.

I like this one better. It is a bit more accurate since there are options along the way:

It is also a little clearer. The first step is never "question the theory". That would come much later. One may eventually question a theory, but first the theory or hypothesis has to be made.

This figure is in harmony with what I have written. The question comes first. Really, stop. You are wrong just accept it and move on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This figure is in harmony with what I have written. The question comes first. Really, stop. You are wrong just accept it and move on.

You still have it wrong. The question that comes first is from the the person that eventually forms the hypothesis. It does not come from critics of the hypothesis. Sorry ,but yo are wrong here and are trying to justify an anti-science attitude.

 

[Truth in love]

What? How does that snippet support your claim? And you forgot, leaving Afghanistan was Trump's plan.

seriously? Biden threatened to withhold funds from Ukraine unless they did him a favor. This quod pro quo was the very thing they tried to impeach trump for round 1

Trump was working on leaving Afghanistan. He was not planning like leave billons in high tech weapons and equipment to the talaban.

 

[Audie]

I reject the premise that the “Right Wing”[sic] is anti-science. Some individuals who may be right wing may also be “anti-science” whatever that means. But mislabeling the entire group is itself unscientific. Furthermore questioning things doesn’t make one anti-science. Questioning is actually an integral part of science.

News of the obvious.
But it's not an inaccurate general statement
to observe where bell curves are.

Americans have a shorter life expectancy than
do Hong Kongers.
OBVIOUSLY this does not mean everyone.

Now as for right wing and anti / ignorant
of science the percent of same amongst
those on the right is way higher than on the
left.
Evangelicals/fundamentalists are on the whole
ill educated, conservative and anti science.

Do you need charts and graphs or are the
responses from the "right" in this thread
offer a hint?

 

[Audie]

Actually I do just fine. I do get a little tired on condensing remarks from people who can’t have an adult conversation.

"Condensing"
condensing

 

[Stevicus]

I reject the premise that the “Right Wing”[sic] is anti-science. Some individuals who may be right wing may also be “anti-science” whatever that means. But mislabeling the entire group is itself unscientific. Furthermore questioning things doesn’t make one anti-science. Questioning is actually an integral part of science.

I actually agree that the premise that "the right wing is anti-science" is flawed. At least when I see the overall context of how these arguments play out, the underlying issue seems more related to politics or perhaps differing philosophical viewpoints.

I don't think the argument has ever really been about "science," even notwithstanding those politically-motivated (mostly non-scientists) who try to use science or attack science for some particular political objective.

But I don't think it means that anyone is truly "anti-science," as I think that's kind of overstating it.

 

[Audie]

I actually agree that the premise that "the right wing is anti-science" is flawed. At least when I see the overall context of how these arguments play out, the underlying issue seems more related to politics or perhaps differing philosophical viewpoints.

I don't think the argument has ever really been about "science," even notwithstanding those politically-motivated (mostly non-scientists) who try to use science or attack science for some particular political objective.

But I don't think it means that anyone is truly "anti-science," as I think that's kind of overstating it.

Of course it's a generalization.
But it generally holds true.
Anti science may not apply to ALL
of science.

But the kind of "questions" we see in this
rather typical thread are not real questions
or issues, it's ignorant garbage.

Not that this thread is about evolution, but
your right wingers are the ones who can't accept evolution, and never once have come up with a real issue or fact contrary to ToE.
Or even a sign the comprehend what they are arguing against.

Show us a right wing issue with science that is well informed.

 

[Heyo]

"Condensing"
condensing

Well, I am typically concise in my remarks.

 

[Audie]

Well, I am typically concise in my remarks.

But it's when you condense on someone that it gets sticky. You see why he doesn't like it.

 

[metis]

Biden threatened to withhold funds from Ukraine unless they did him a favor.

What!!! You got it totally backwards as it is Trump who wanted dirt on Biden's son and withheld funds because they wouldn't deliver!

Trump administration violated the law by withholding Ukraine aid, Government Accountability Office says (nbcnews.com)

 

[Truth in love]

That was not an insult. The fact is that very very few creationists understand the concept of evidence.

And you just demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Too many creationists conflate "evidence" with "proof". You would be right that it is not proof, but you are wrong when you state that it is not evidence.

And do you even know how many "Lucy's" have been found? It is just a tiny bit over the number one.

I can support this with various sources but here is the definition of scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence are observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis.

That's it. So if given an observation there are only two questions you need to ask. Does the observation support or oppose the theory or hypothesis in question? In the case of Lucy, yes. If you need to know why I will gladly discuss that. And is the theory or hypothesis falsifiable. And once again in the case of evolution the answer is yes. There are various tests that could conceivably refute it.


Okay, is there any scientific evidence for creationism?

We have a lot.

1. We have a world which is filled with complex life. There are many factors including the temperature, solar radiation etc. That are all in a Goldilocks zone. I forget the exact number, but a great many things need to be in balance or life as we know it could not happen. All of this points to a creator not dumb luck.
2. We know from our studies in genetics that with few exceptions Life is carried on via sexual reproduction. Near matches can create offspring (such as a ligar), but the off spring is nearly always sterile. So mating between any two random animals will not create a new species. We also know that if the DNA is too close we have genetic defects which cause great harm and limited viability. In order for a species to evolve into a new one you would need a reasonable number of the creature to all go through the same set of mutations at about the same time. (Our dog breading fails are a great example of having too narrow a gene pool).
3. In order for a new form of life to occur it must be directed or on accident.
4. Its a jungle out there. There are very few places where life can thrive without fierce competition. Most animal offspring do not live long enough to reproduce.
5. Most changes are gradual. Small variations over many generations.
So in order for a rat to become a bat (one of many examples used in evolution theory) There must have been a prolonged awkward stage Where the forming wings could not allow flight, but would have inhibited running. In a lab such a stage could be worked though. In the jungle the odds of surviving would have been nearly zero. For creatures to have gone through such stages (entirely on their own at random) to create the massive bio diversity we now can observe is not rational.

On the other hand a creator who is a master of biology could direct various changes and stage of growth. They could intervene as needed to ensure or prevent the survival of certain genes.

 

[Truth in love]

Lucy is not a single find. The remains of more than 300 Australopithecus afarensis specimens have been found and examined, to date. So there you go! That's more than a few dozen.

Funny they only asked about Lucy.

 

[Truth in love]

You find it condescending to be be corrected?
It would not happen f you did not say such
uneducated things.

How does one have an "adult" conversation with
someone who makes things up, posts misinformation
and falsehoods?

You did not bother to find out if there are more
Lucys. Just clained there are not.

"Anomoly," as if that is even remotely possible.

And as if single- find fossils are not the norm!
First one is usually, one.
Usually part of one.

It can be years before more are found.

Who figures there only ever was just one?
It's an insult to intelligence.

You know you make a good point. It hard to take someone seriously who post abused things.

 

[Truth in love]

It isn't easy to keep up an adult conversation with someone who is ignorant of the facts and under the illusion to be not. Children at least know that they don't know and are willing to learn. Adults who have been indoctrinated since childhood are resistant to new learning. Some have to be told by a judge and to pay a hefty sum before they accept reality. (See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia)

So in others words anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

 

[Heyo]

So in others words anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

While that is usually true, I don't get how you deducted that from the post.
It's more so that anyone who disagrees with established science is usually wrong. That is especially so for creationists and there are examples that it has cost them.
The school board of Dover had exactly the kind of people I was describing, uneducated but unaware of it and impervious to arguments. They cost the school district $ 1,000,000.

 

[Audie]

You know you make a good point. It hard to take someone seriously who post abused things.

" Who post abused things"?
If you are not a native English speaker,
we can accommodate that.

Do you mean you feel abused? You are in the wrong place if you are that tender.

Maybe there's a place where making things
up is good form and everyone is sweety sweet.

 

[Audie]

While that is usually true, I don't get how you deducted that from the post.
It's more so that anyone who disagrees with established science is usually wrong. That is especially so for creationists and there are examples that it has cost them.
The school board of Dover had exactly the kind of people I was describing, uneducated but unaware of it and impervious to arguments. They cost the school district $ 1,000,000.

That is so immoral

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have a lot.

1. We have a world which is filled with complex life. There are many factors including the temperature, solar radiation etc. That are all in a Goldilocks zone. I forget the exact number, but a great many things need to be in balance or life as we know it could not happen. All of this points to a creator not dumb luck.
2. We know from our studies in genetics that with few exceptions Life is carried on via sexual reproduction. Near matches can create offspring (such as a ligar), but the off spring is nearly always sterile. So mating between any two random animals will not create a new species. We also know that if the DNA is too close we have genetic defects which cause great harm and limited viability. In order for a species to evolve into a new one you would need a reasonable number of the creature to all go through the same set of mutations at about the same time. (Our dog breading fails are a great example of having too narrow a gene pool).
3. In order for a new form of life to occur it must be directed or on accident.
4. Its a jungle out there. There are very few places where life can thrive without fierce competition. Most animal offspring do not live long enough to reproduce.
5. Most changes are gradual. Small variations over many generations.
So in order for a rat to become a bat (one of many examples used in evolution theory) There must have been a prolonged awkward stage Where the forming wings could not allow flight, but would have inhibited running. In a lab such a stage could be worked though. In the jungle the odds of surviving would have been nearly zero. For creatures to have gone through such stages (entirely on their own at random) to create the massive bio diversity we now can observe is not rational.

On the other hand a creator who is a master of biology could direct various changes and stage of growth. They could intervene as needed to ensure or prevent the survival of certain genes.

Sorry, but none of that is scientific evidence for creationism. I already told you what qualifies as scientific evidence.

Didn't I ask you this question:

What reasonable test based upon the predictions of creationism could possibly refute it?

All you have is an ad hoc explanation and that should not convince anyone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny they only asked about Lucy.

No, there was a very good point for that question. It showed that you are not qualified at all to argue against evolution. Far too many creationists think that fossil finds are usually one of a kind. Some are. But for many of them we have many examples. Lucy was not even the first Australopithecus afarensis found. She was just the first one with a skeleton complete enough to know that she walked bipedally. We have found many more since. And of course the first illustrations of her showed her with what creationists a "human foot". The foot was actually based upon her size and the fact that she walked as a bipedal. But guess what. Footbones of others have been found. Footprints have been found The illustrations were rather accurate.