Why is the Right Wing Anti-Science?

[Stevicus]

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

True, I made an earlier point that even those deemed "anti-science" only seem to be so when it comes to their pet political issues, whether it's evolution, vaccinations, climate change, or whatever the case may be. It's those kinds of issues where the matter is brought up.

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.

Well, they're not really my right wingers. But yes, you're right in that a lot of them don't accept evolution. I honestly don't know why they've latched on to this particular issue, except maybe that opposition to evolution has been around since Darwin first published it, and it could be due to historical tradition. The religious right has tried to push back against liberal secularism, and I've noticed that they'll use whatever they can to keep up the attack.

I don't think very many of them know or even care all that much about the Theory of Evolution, in and of itself. It's just that, at some point, someone led them to believe that it's some kind of "communist indoctrination," and they believed it. Once they're in that mode of thinking, then they're not really thinking at all.

As for right wing issues with science that is well informed, I'm not sure if there is one. Perhaps military science - that's something the right wing might support. They like guns and other weapons, so that's one area of science they'll certainly accept.

 

[Truth in love]

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.

Well as one who rejects the pushing of pseudo science I can tell you that you are very wrong in dissing creationism. But its a semi free country so you are welcome to be wrong.

 

[Truth in love]

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.

Well hey if the requirement to be "qualified" is to agree with you than I proudly will be unqualified for my entire life. I reject the anti scientific notions you share. I reject the attitude that disagreement is bad and that wanting evidence is unscientific.

 

[Truth in love]

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.

So in short all evidence that does not fit your wanted outcome is irreverent. Its a belief system not science that you pushed. If you want to discuss belief great let me know, but it you can't even discuss evidence that does not conform to your wanted outcome you not taking science and I decline to pretend that you are.

As for you very awkwardly worded question. Sure. I purpose that new species don't spontaneously appear without the intervention of a highly intelligent being. When you can show that a new one has appeared one it own let me know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So in short all evidence that does not fit your wanted outcome is irreverent. Its a belief system not science that you pushed. If you want to discuss belief great let me know, but it you can't even discuss evidence that does not conform to your wanted outcome you not taking science and I decline to pretend that you are.

As for you very awkwardly worded question. Sure. I purpose that new species don't spontaneously appear without the intervention of a highly intelligent being. When you can show that a new one has appeared one it own let me know.

Why make false claims. Those observations are not evidence since your side has cowards for scientists. A real scientist wants to know when he is wrong. In fact a real scientist has to be willing to accept the fact when he is shown to be wrong.

Why did you dodge the question that I gave you? When you dodge a reasonable question you show that you know that you are wrong.

So one more time: What reasonable test based upon the predictions from creationism could possible refute the idea?

That is a very reasonable test when talking of matters of science.

By the way, your "test" does not work. It has to be based upon the merits of your concept. And worse yet it has already been refuted. We see new species forming quite often. No evidence of a magical God being involved. If you say that I have to "prove" that no God was involved that again would be a fail on your part. You cannot shift the burden of proof for your claim. I can give you an example of a test that would refute evolution that does not involve a God.

Here may be a big part of your failure to reason properly. Even if creationism was falsified that does not "prove evolution" And by he same way if evolution was shown to be wrong that would not "prove creationism".

 

[Heyo]

Well as one who rejects the pushing of pseudo science I can tell you that you are very wrong in dissing creationism. But its a semi free country so you are welcome to be wrong.

I live in a more free and more rational country and I'm doing fine. When here someone mentions creationism they get laughed out of the room and that's it. Not so in the US. There creationists are dangerous. They can cause losses of a million dollar to a local school district. Doesn't that give you pause to think?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well as one who rejects the pushing of pseudo science I can tell you that you are very wrong in dissing creationism. But its a semi free country so you are welcome to be wrong.

Sorry, but you just refuted your claim. If you reject the pushing of pseudoscience you have to reject the pushing of creationism. Your failure in regards to a test has demonstrated that fact.

 

[metis]

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.

Where did you get the above from as the pattern doesn't match yours?

 

[Truth in love]

Why make false claims. Those observations are not evidence since your side has cowards for scientists. A real scientist wants to know when he is wrong. In fact a real scientist has to be willing to accept the fact when he is shown to be wrong.

Why did you dodge the question that I gave you? When you dodge a reasonable question you show that you know that you are wrong.

So one more time: What reasonable test based upon the predictions from creationism could possible refute the idea?

That is a very reasonable test when talking of matters of science.

By the way, your "test" does not work. It has to be based upon the merits of your concept. And worse yet it has already been refuted. We see new species forming quite often. No evidence of a magical God being involved. If you say that I have to "prove" that no God was involved that again would be a fail on your part. You cannot shift the burden of proof for your claim. I can give you an example of a test that would refute evolution that does not involve a God.

Here may be a big part of your failure to reason properly. Even if creationism was falsified that does not "prove evolution" And by he same way if evolution was shown to be wrong that would not "prove creationism".

And the insults (not really the adult way to have a conversation)
Show me a new species. Not a we want to call this new, but show me where we have a rat that used to be dog or some such. That would be very interesting to see.

You've moved the goal post from evidence to proof. Not the same thing. There is a great deal of evidence for many things that we would not regard as total proof. Tectonic plates for example. We have yet to do the many deep dives into the earths crust and beyond to fully prove the theory. We do have a lot of evidence and last a looked very little to the contrary. But I would not say we have proved what is in the earth's center or how the plates work.

 

[Truth in love]

I live in a more free and more rational country and I'm doing fine. When here someone mentions creationism they get laughed out of the room and that's it. Not so in the US. There creationists are dangerous. They can cause losses of a million dollar to a local school district. Doesn't that give you pause to think?

It does give me pause. In a nation founded on religious and economic freedom we abandoned freedom for force. It's very concerning. The disrespect to laugh people out of a conversation should also give us pause.

 

[Truth in love]

Sorry, but you just refuted your claim. If you reject the pushing of pseudoscience you have to reject the pushing of creationism. Your failure in regards to a test has demonstrated that fact.

I offered a valid test. You don't like it, fair enough, but you have done nothing to address the concerns I raised except to pretend they are not there.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It does give me pause. In a nation founded on religious and economic freedom we abandoned freedom for force. It's very concerning. The disrespect to laugh people out of a conversation should also give us pause.

Stupid ideas being given platforms, time and energy is why the US is such a laughingstock. And young earth creationism is a stupid idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the insults (not really the adult way to have a conversation)
Show me a new species. Not a we want to call this new, but show me where we have a rat that used to be dog or some such. That would be very interesting to see.

You've moved the goal post from evidence to proof. Not the same thing. There is a great deal of evidence for many things that we would not regard as total proof. Tectonic plates for example. We have yet to do the many deep dives into the earths crust and beyond to fully prove the theory. We do have a lot of evidence and last a looked very little to the contrary. But I would not say we have proved what is in the earth's center or how the plates work.

What "insults"? I am being serious. You have made serious errors all over the place.

And your demand is ridiculously ignorant. You want me to disprove creationism by showing you a change that can only happen in creationism.

You have no clue as to what you are arguing about.

Let's go over some basics. "Change of kind" is a creationist strawman. There is no change of kind in evolution. Do you understand that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I offered a valid test. You don't like it, fair enough, but you have done nothing to address the concerns I raised except to pretend they are not there.

No you didn't. Your test failed. You may not have understood the explanation why.

And you sadly do not know enough to understand how you lost.

What supposed concerns did you raise?

 

[Truth in love]

Where did you get the above from as the pattern doesn't match yours?

I don't always take tons of time to double check my typing, but that questions seemed to warrant it. In short It was me.


The longer answer:
I've been studying various theories for many years. I find that often people tend to ignore unwanted bits that make a conclusion they wish for hard to accept. Many Christians have a hard time with the Law of Moses. BLM does not like to deal with blacks being active in the slave trade back in the day. Republicans hate Trump having affairs and running his mouth. Democrats have a hard time with Biden bragging about extorting the Ukraine and being an accused sex abuser.

If we are to improve we must accept the shadow as well as what we want.

Now if I were to be taking to a die hard Christian who hates evolution entirely I'd likely point out that there would not have been room on the ark for 2 of every type of cat and dog. The theory is not worthless, but it has limits and we should be open about them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

@Subduction Zone I know you rated my post as winner but honestly I forums like these are part of the problem too. Not specifically you but anyone who keeps giving breathing air to something *not* *worth* *debating.* platforming it, giving it time amd energy, when it's not worth any and just gives it more exposure and has been shrinking a lot more in places where it isn’t a constant hot button. Honestly I wish more people would see 'evolution is a lie' in the same way most people see flat earthers. Laugh, walk away. Don't give them the honor of responding.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[metis]

BLM does not like to deal with blacks being active in the slave trade back in the day.

Where did you get this from? Link please.

Republicans hate Trump having affairs and running his mouth.

And yet around 60% of those who call themselves Republicans are still supporting the BIG LIE and also him. However, there are signs that number may be reducing.

Democrats have a hard time with Biden bragging about extorting the Ukraine and being an accused sex abuser.

I do believe I posted to you [or someone else] on this as the above is not true, and I posted a link showing that it was not Biden but Trump who did that. If you think I'm wrong, please post a link.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that in the US creationists, who are not all that different from Flat Earthers, have managed now and then to get their magical beliefs taught in public schools. They have caused real damage and continue to try to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't always take tons of time to double check my typing, but that questions seemed to warrant it. In short It was me.


The longer answer:
I've been studying various theories for many years. I find that often people tend to ignore unwanted bits that make a conclusion they wish for hard to accept. Many Christians have a hard time with the Law of Moses. BLM does not like to deal with blacks being active in the slave trade back in the day. Republicans hate Trump having affairs and running his mouth. Democrats have a hard time with Biden bragging about extorting the Ukraine and being an accused sex abuser.

If we are to improve we must accept the shadow as well as what we want.

Now if I were to be taking to a die hard Christian who hates evolution entirely I'd likely point out that there would not have been room on the ark for 2 of every type of cat and dog. The theory is not worthless, but it has limits and we should be open about them.

The ark is an even worse myth. Seriously, is the Earth Flat too?

What makes you think that fairy tale for five year olds is real?

 

[Audie]

Well as one who rejects the pushing of pseudo science I can tell you that you are very wrong in dissing creationism. But its a semi free country so you are welcome to be wrong.

I don't suppose you could show us
anything about creation "science" that is not pseudo.

It is actually impossible to be an educated and intellectually honest creationist.