Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Congressman attacks evolution

  1. Oct 6, 2012 #1
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 6, 2012 #2

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Congressnan attacks evolution

    I posted that in "Funny pictures of politicians" :biggrin:

    The amazing thing about this guy - he's an MD!
     
  4. Oct 6, 2012 #3

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

  5. Oct 6, 2012 #4

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    America is, sadly, full of this kind of fruitcake and it's not something that any particular profession does not have examples of.
     
  6. Oct 6, 2012 #5
    Re: Congressnan attacks evolution

    Yup! He must have graduated from one of these schools. I can see getting through medical school and not believing in the Big Bang or even evolution. But embryology?

    http://www.ehow.com/list_5962459_christian-medical-schools.html.

    Then again, he says he was taught these things, but now rejects them as lies from the pit of hell. Maybe he thinks babies come from the pit of hell?

    EDIT: These three medical schools actually offer a fairly standard curriculum. However, as Catholic institutions, they may reflect the Vatican's view on abortion and birth control. However, I'm not aware that they do.

    The Congressman holds fundamentalist views held by many evangelistic Protestants in the US.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  7. Oct 6, 2012 #6

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Congressnan attacks evolution

    A quick look up is all you need to find out his educational background. He didn't specialize in embryology. He had no specialty.

    Wow, he's quite, uhm...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Broun#Tenure
     
  8. Oct 6, 2012 #7
    A Republican rejecting evolution and the Big Bang theory? I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!!

    Although rejecting the Big Bang I find interesting. From what I understand, astronomers are not completely 100% sure if the Big Bang is how things started, but even if it is, the Big Bang does not go against Christianity. IF ANYTHING, it goes along with it. The Bible starts with God saying, "Let there be light!" and from what we can tell, that's exactly how the universe started. All the matter was compressed into a singularity, which then expanded outwards very quickly, and with a massive amount of light as well.

    Scientists theorized that this light should still exist and should still be detectable, albeit it would now be in a different wavelength. Today, they believe that the microwave radiation that emanates from deep space is the light from the Big Bang, just now in a much elongated wavelength.

    Big Bang theory says nothing about just how or who or what compressed all of the matter into a singularity. You could very much believe that God created the universe through the Big Bang. Christians refuse to accept evolution however, because evolution means no Adam and Eve, which means no Eve messing up and eating the fruit from the tree, and thus no humanity getting tainted with original sin, and thus no need for Jesus to die on the cross to save us all from it. Otherwise, one could just argue that God created evolution.
     
  9. Oct 6, 2012 #8

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Fair enough - the Congressman is treating evolution as badly as evolution has treated him. :biggrin:
     
  10. Oct 6, 2012 #9
    I find it too common a Republican making some scientific dumb statement. A Recent example was Bobby Jindal promoting creationism in schools. Something related was Todd Akin statements on what constitutes as a rape. There are few other Republicans in:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=638517
     
  11. Oct 7, 2012 #10

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Do you mean i) you observe politicians from both parties and make that conclusion primarily about Republicans, or ii) you are not interested in statements from Democratic politicians that may be scientifically unsound?
     
  12. Oct 7, 2012 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Buwahaha!! It was a joke!! But you knew that and were just kidding around, right? :rofl:


     
  13. Oct 7, 2012 #12

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Johnson was joking at the time because, later, he said he was joking?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  14. Oct 7, 2012 #13
    Well, if you are serious why don't we see how many dumb Democrat politicians you can find :biggrin:

    So far, we have 1 dumb statement from Democrat vs 5 from Republicans.

    P.S. I didn't start Dem vs Rep thing, it started somewhere in the other thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4103876&postcount=46.
     
  15. Oct 7, 2012 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You seriously believe that? <snork>

    From your link
    :biggrin:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001567-503544.html
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  16. Oct 7, 2012 #15
    That's a new word for me:approve:
     
  17. Oct 7, 2012 #16
    People are commenting about Broun's position on the Big Bang and evolution, but it's his position on embryology that floors me. He's an MD! Does he believe in the Stork Theory?
     
  18. Oct 7, 2012 #17
    Astronomers are as sure the universe started in a big bang as doctors are sure that HIV causes AIDS. It's a bit of a stretch to say that the universe started exactly with "let there be light." The universe started with "let's be in a hot, dense state" if anything.

    The problem for young earth creationists is that they believe the Earth and universe are only about 6,000 years old, where the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago. That's why they would reject the big bang.
     
  19. Oct 7, 2012 #18
    I wonder if he objects to the practice of embryology, not the theory.
     
  20. Oct 7, 2012 #19

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Or 9000 years old according to Rep. Broun, who is also a member of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the House of Representatives.
    (my bold for emphasis) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-science-member-says-earth-is-9000-years-old/

    He apparently claims to be a scientist.
     
  21. Oct 7, 2012 #20
    That is a joke, right?
     
  22. Oct 7, 2012 #21
    One question to those expressing astonishment at the stupidity of the congressman’s remarks – is there a possibility that he really is not that stupid but is just that dishonest? In other words, he knows as well as you and I that his remarks are stupid, but he is prepared to make them anyway because it plays well among those on whom he relies for votes?
     
  23. Oct 7, 2012 #22
    It would be fair to say that most if not all, evangelistic/fundamentalist Christians do not believe in biological evolution or any description of "creation" that does not literally agree with the book of Genesis. However, I don't think they deny the existence of embryos, human or otherwise.

    EDIT: It's interesting that the Roman Catholic church, also Christian, not only believes in embryos, but considers them full fledged human beings, deserving of all the basic rights of human beings. I believe that's also the case with the pro-life Protestant Christians including the fundamentalists.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  24. Oct 7, 2012 #23
    I do not think he is against embrology but rather the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" part, and if strong religious beliefs contribute to the survival and reproductive success of a group of people, then is he not implicitly contributing in a positive manner, to that which he rejects?
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  25. Oct 7, 2012 #24
    "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is simply an observation. Human embryos develop gills at one point. They are simply there. You just have to look at them. To deny the gills is to deny the embryo.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  26. Oct 7, 2012 #25
    Perhaps I am in error. Has he denied the existence of the gills? I suspect not. And if so, then I think he can acknowledge their existence and still not believe in evolution. I would think someone could be a good embryologist and not believe in evolution. I would think further some religious people are more successful in surviving and reproducting than non-religious ones and part of that success is due, I believe, to their religious beliefs.

    I recall reading a book some time ago entitled, "The Biology of Religion" and I believe the premise of the book was how religion imparts survival and reproductive success to the believer.

    I think this is the book:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Biology-Religion-Vernon-Reynolds/dp/0582300215

    It was a long time ago but I seem to recall the front cover.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook