The Increasingly Antiscience Republican Candidates

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A lot of folks on the web are buzzing about Paul Krugman’s NYT OpEd today about the antiscience convictions of the current cohort of Republican candidates running for President of these United States. I find little fault in what Krugman wrote. Each candidate on the right is simply scrambling to be even more antiscience than the next.

Of course, if that "next" is Rick Perry, then I doubt anyone could sprint away from reality more than he does. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool creationist who apparently has no problem narrowing or stepping well over the line with separation of Church and State, and when it comes to denying climate change he also apparently had no problem with simply making things up (Krugman calls his statements "vile", and the Washington Post blog The Fact Checker rated his claims as "whoppers"). Perry’s stance on other big issues is similar.

And he’s far and away the front runner, which leaves me shaking my head.

Where Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum stand is obvious. Newt Gingrich — who claims he’s a fan of science — equivocates when it comes to Intelligent Design and evolution as well as global warming, and was instrumental in defunding the House Office of Technology Assessment in 1995.

Even the candidates people are calling "moderate" are falling over themselves to appease the base when it comes to science and the lack thereof. Mitt Romney tried to eat his cake and have it too about accepting evolution, and even Ron Paul has now distanced himself from evolution.

Which brings up Jon Huntsman, which is where things get truly maddening. He recently said he thinks both evolution and global warming are real. This makes me sad, and scared. Why? Because this statement is considered bold.

How can it be bold to accept reality, to not deny the overwhelming evidence, and to agree with the vast, vast majority of scientists studying the very topics of discussion?

Huntsman wants his party not to be "the antiscience party". But that shouldn’t be bold. That should be common sense.

As it happens, Huntsman is trailing in the polls by a nearly insurmountable distance. That’s certainly not caused by his statement — he’s been behind for a long time — and may not even be correlated directly; as one Republican strategist commented, he may simply be saying things to try to stand out from the crowd.

But if true, think on that: he’s making clear, logical, rational statements in order to separate himself from the other candidates.

And that’s where we are.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/29/the-increasingly-antiscience-republican-candidates/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Science = Elitism = Bad

When the Republicans say they want to take back their country, they really mean that they want to take the country back - into the 19th century, that is. And yes, very frightening that is indeed.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Science = Elitism = Bad

When the Republicans say they want to take back their country, they really mean that they want to take the country back - into the 19th century, that is. And yes, very frightening that is indeed.

I hope they enjoy leeches and snake oil for their healthcare!

[scandal 951]

This was a timely article in the Tribune today.

I mean, if evolution is false, and Global Warming is false, why shouldn't Galileo and heliocentrism be false too?

It's just a matter of time before Perry, Bachmann et al take up the cause of an Earth centered universe.

These Geocentrists are crazy, you say? Sure. But no more so than people who deny the origin of the species.

A few Catholics still insist Galileo was wrong

They say Earth is the center of the universe, embracing church teachings of four centuries ago.

Vatican Observatory

Brother Guy Consolmagno of the Vatican Observatory takes a modern view of Earth's place in the universe. (Plinio Lepri, AP / August 28, 2011)

By Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune

August 27, 2011, 8:45 p.m.

Reporting from Chicago—

Some people believe the world revolves around them — and their belief is born not of selfishness but of faith.

A few conservative Roman Catholics are pointing to a dozen Bible verses and the church's original teachings as proof that Earth is the center of the universe, the view that was at the heart of the church's clash with Galileo Galilei four centuries ago.

The relatively obscure movement has gained a following among those who find comfort in knowing there are still staunch defenders of early church doctrine.

"This subject is, as far as I can see, an embarrassment to the modern church because the world more or less looks upon geocentrism, or someone who believes it, in the same boat as the flat Earth," said James Phillips of Cicero, Ill.

Phillips attends Our Lady Immaculate Catholic Church in Oak Park, Ill., a parish run by the Society of St. Pius X, which rejects most of the modernizing reforms made by the Vatican II council from 1962 to 1965.

But by challenging modern science, proponents of a geocentric universe are challenging the very church they seek to serve and protect.

"I have no idea who these people are," said Brother Guy Consolmagno, curator of meteorites and spokesman for the Vatican Observatory. "Are they sincere, or is this a clever bit of theater?"

Those promoting geocentrism argue that heliocentrism, or the centuries-old consensus among scientists that Earth revolves around the sun, is a conspiracy to squelch the church's influence.

"Heliocentrism becomes dangerous if it is being propped up as the true system when, in fact, it is a false system," said Robert Sungenis, leader of a budding movement to get scientists to reconsider. "False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions — thus the state of the world today.… Prior to Galileo, the church was in full command of the world, and governments and academia were subservient to her."

Sungenis is no Don Quixote. Hundreds of curiosity seekers, skeptics and supporters attended a conference last fall titled "Galileo Was Wrong. The Church Was Right" near the University of Notre Dame campus in South Bend, Ind.

Astrophysicists at Notre Dame didn't appreciate the group hitching its wagon to America's flagship Catholic university and resurrecting a concept that's extinct for a reason.

"It's an idea whose time has come and gone," astrophysics professor Peter Garnavich said. "There are some people who want to move the world back to the 1950s when it seemed like a better time. These are people who want to move the world back to the 1250s."

Garnavich said the theory of geocentrism violates what he believes should be a strict separation of church and science. One answers why, the other answers how, and never the twain should meet, he said.

But supporters contend there is scientific evidence to support geocentrism, just as there is evidence to support the six-day story of creation in Genesis.

There is proof in Scripture that Earth is the center of the universe, Sungenis said. Among many verses, he cites Joshua 10:12-14 as definitive proof: "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, while the nation took vengeance on its foe.… The sun halted in the middle of the sky; not for a whole day did it resume its swift course."

But Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., said the Bible is silent on geocentrism.

"There's a big difference between looking at the origin of the planets, the solar system and the universe and looking at presently how they move and how they are interrelated," Ham said. "The Bible is neither geocentric or heliocentric. It does not give any specific information about the structure of the solar system."

Just as Ham challenges the foundation of natural history museums by disputing evolution, Sungenis challenges planetariums, most notably the Vatican Observatory.

But Consolmagno said the very premise of going after Galileo illustrates the theory's lack of scientific credibility.

"Of course, we understand the universe in a far more nuanced way than Galileo did 400 years ago," he said.

"And I would hope that the next 400 years would see just as much development."

[mawilson 2,133]

they want to take the country back - into the 19th century, that is.

What's wrong with the 19th century?

The Gilded Age (1865–1900) saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history.

[The_Dude 1,142]

What's wrong with the 19th century?

The Gilded Age (1865–1900) saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history.

No thanks, I enjoy indoor plumbing and toilet paper.

[mawilson 2,133]

No thanks, I enjoy indoor plumbing and toilet paper.

Yes, Rick Perry wants to take away your toilet paper.

P.S. The first packaged toilet paper was produced in the US in 1857 so you're ok.

Edited August 29, 2011 by mawilson

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yes, Rick Perry wants to take away your toilet paper.

Sorry, I forgot the /sarcasm tag to end my post.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What's wrong with the 19th century?

Nothing. It's just that I've grown to like certain elements of the 21st century. I wouldn't be going on a quick trip to Germany for my vacation if this was the 19th century. Nor would I have married the gal I love - remember, she's black and I'm not. Them things were frowned upon in the 19th century. In some places even deep into the 20th century. I'll admit that I also like my air conditioned home. And a few other conveniences that the anti flat-earth crowd has accomplished over the past few centuries. I have no desire to live in a place where we're made to pretend that the earth is flat. It isn't no matter how much some folks love to claim the opposite.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A few conservative Roman Catholics are pointing to a dozen Bible verses and the church's original teachings as proof that Earth is the center of the universe, the view that was at the heart of the church's clash with Galileo Galilei four centuries ago.