Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)

  • News
  • Thread starter NeoDevin
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Rest
In summary: well, a thread about lack of understanding of basic science (and/or an effort to sabotage the public school science curriculum).
  • #281
D H said:
Only 52 percent of declared Catholics believe that the existence of God is "certain or possible."

OmCheeto said:
That, is one of the funniest statistics I have seen in a long time. So what's with the other 48%? Are they Catholic because of the bake sales?

Evo said:
You can be born Catholic, so idenitfy as a Catholic when asked what your religion is, but that doesn't mean that you attend Mass or aren't agnostic. I was born Roman Catholic, will tell people I'm catholic, but I am also an atheist. Go figure.

Who says Catholics don't apply a scientific method to their faith?

"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, but we're trying to find the error bars on that number ..."
- 1 Corinthians 8:6 (+/- 2)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #282
turbo said:
Russ, this is ridiculous. Some extremists brought up the fact that McCain was born in a militarily controlled territory, and not US soil. That was bound to fail, and I think all rational voters thought so, regardless of whether they favored McCain or not.
It still happened, turbo, "bound to fail" or not.
Ivan Seeking said:
None of this compares to what we've seen from the right. It is a matter of proportion. There have always been extreme elements on both sides. That does not explain what we've seen from the right wing in recent years.
lisab said:
There was never any "conspiracy" -- he was, in fact, born in Panama.

Your argument of "Well, the dems do it too!" is extremely weak, since any comparison between what a blogger or two wrote about McCain, and what happened with those batsh!t crazy birthers...it just makes the birthers look even more nutty.
I'm reasonably certain the three of you have challenged me on this before and as before, I'll point out that the McCain "birther" issue was big enough to make it into mainstream news. It is factually wrong to claim that it was just "a blogger or two".
 
  • #283
Ivan Seeking said:
You sure can be anti-something you don't know anything about; in fact, especially so. The cold war was a great example. Fear of the Soviets and all of their evil agendas, and visa versa, was based largely on ignorance. The Red Scare was based on ignorance. In the case of science, about the only way to be anti-science is to be ignorant.
Wow, Ivan, the cold war? I'll give you props for going grand and obscure, but to claim that we knew nothing about the Soviets? To call that nonsense would win me the most charitable post of the day award!
You seem to be suggesting that a majority or unusually high percentage of Republicans might be ignorant.
Certainly! Every single person on Earth is ignorant of a great many things and in the US, ignorance of science is a national epidemic.
And to what degree does this cognitive dissonance result in the desire to teach intelligent design, or creationism, along with that other little theory, evolution, in public schools?
I don't know, but logically I don't see why one would exclude the other. The more important question, IMO, is if electing Perry will actually result in ID being taught in school. If there isn't much chance of that, then this isn't an issue worthy of discussion before the coming election. Other issues that will actually matter actually matter more!
The problem is not just belief but the resulting political agenda.
Well you're the first I've seen in here claiming that ID in and of itself is a big enough political issue to be concerned about. Others have suggested only that it is a bellwhether/benchmark. You're certainly free to believe that, but IMO, the economy is much more important - so much more important that ID isn't on my radar at all as a serious political issue.
And if a person can so casually oscillate between faith and fact according to the issue, then they really can't be very rational in the first place.
There is nothing at all casual about a strong religious conviction.
How can someone be pro-science but only accept overwhelming evidence when it's convenient? This only shows that logic might be abandoned at any turn in favor of a warm and fuzzy feeling. How is that not anti-science?
Again, religion encroaches on science only in very specific issues. I've met many a religious person who'se anti-science stance was strictly confined. We've seen such people on this forum.
Obviously a lot of people do believe it's significant and not a game. You are voicing an opinion [a belief], not a fact.
Of course.
 
  • #284
On the other hand, might Dawkins someday support ID?:rolleyes:

http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

"BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #285
WhoWee said:
On the other hand, might Dawkins someday support ID?:rolleyes:

http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

"BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
Where's the rest of his quote?
Dawkins said:
That higher intelligence would, itself, have had to have come about by some explicable, ultimately explicable, process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.
Nice try but no cigar.:-p

This has also been debunked, Ben Stein was interviwing scientists under false pretenses. They were asked to make their wildest speculations on life on earth.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

We have the debunking here in an old thread.

Claims that film producers misled intervieweesThe movie has been criticized by those interviewees who are critics of intelligent design (P.Z. Myers, Dawkins,[63] Shermer,[28] and National Center for Science Education head Eugenie Scott), who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion", and were directed to a blurb implying an approach to the documentary crediting Darwin with "the answer" to how humanity developed:[64][65][66]

The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable. It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes (later improved to 10% overall) where the film was summarized thus: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary." Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda.[7][13][14] The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)",[15] while The New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."[7]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms.[17] The film has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills.

Yeah, stooping to lies and fraud to take information out of context. A truly great representation of ID.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expell...laims_that_film_producers_misled_interviewees

WhoWee, I'm so disappointed, I thought you researched things for fraud before you posted them. :frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #286
BobG said:
Who says Catholics don't apply a scientific method to their faith?

"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, but we're trying to find the error bars on that number ..."
- 1 Corinthians 8:6 (+/- 2)

Perhaps that's what I'm looking for. Some people are just too serious.

Some of the people I admire most are devoutly religious. Some of the people I admire the least are devoutly religious. So I guess religion has nothing to do with it.

Om; "Do you guys still believe in creationism?"
Bruce; "Yes..., except in your case."

Bruce is, and always has been, my hero.
 
  • #287
OmCheeto said:
Om; "Do you guys still believe in creationism?"
Bruce; "Yes..., except in your case."

Bruce is, and always has been, my hero.

Anti-Om; "Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?"

It sure looks like it. But in trying to reconcile my duplicity in the matter by googling feverishly this morning, guided by the hand of god obviously, I ran across many messages, both from him/her/it, and earthly mortals.

I ran across Ivan's recount of http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml", a commentary which ended with the quote by Sinclair Lewis; “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”, which struck me as kind of mean spirited. But the last two things I ran across, which were linked by author, kind of showed me the difference between Rick and Bruce.

The first was an article by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, apparently questioning Perry's sincerity/motives: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...erry-as-christian-as-he-thinks-he-is/243616/"

I'd never heard of K.K.Townsend before, so I googled her, and discovered she wrote https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001JJBOHO/?tag=pfamazon01-20*. The little review kind of summed up my feelings on the matter:

Two-term Maryland lieutenant governor Townsend makes a valid point: in America, faith is no longer about community. She longs for the Catholic Church of her youth, that "dealt with issues at the core of the Gospel—suffering, injustice, sickness, and poverty" rather than a Christianity influenced by a crop of preachers who seem to believe that "Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry and cared for the poor just so we don't have to."

Bruce is not a hypocrite.

*Available at Amazon.com for the heavenly price of only $2.07
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #288
More science http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...xas-censorship-environment-report?CMP=twt_gu":

Rick Perry's administration commissions a report by scientists on the state of Galveston Bay, then proceeds to delete everything about sea level rise, warming, and wetlands destruction (including the actual measurements). Any mention of human causes for any of these was removed. Go http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/perry-officials-censored-climate-report" for a line by line comparison before and after.

every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document

Edited to add: I don't see any possible way that burying your head in the sand can result in sound economic policy. These changes will have real effects on the local economy, and denying them can't possibly improve decision making.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #289
Perry has apparently recently decided to opt out of most of the future Republican debates. Probably a good decision. He's, apparently, a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge. As is Romney. Paul is, I think a relative heavyweight compared to those two. Unfortunately, I think that some of Paul's economic proposals/cuts would be extremely damaging to the general economy.
 
  • #290
  • #291
ThomasT said:
Perry has apparently recently decided to opt out of most of the future Republican debates. Probably a good decision. He's, apparently, a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge. As is Romney. Paul is, I think a relative heavyweight compared to those two. Unfortunately, I think that some of Paul's economic proposals/cuts would be extremely damaging to the general economy.

my bold
Please clarify your inclusion of Romney - why is he "a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge"?
 
  • #292
Char. Limit said:
Apologies if this post isn't on-topic, but I don't want to start a new thread for it and this seems to be the best place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perrys-birther-parade/2011/10/24/gIQAyFRNDM_story.html

When I saw the headline I immediately thought "oh god, they're trotting out that old horse again?". But reading the article, this looks less like Perry being a birther and more like Parade giving him leading questions. Your thoughts?
Yeah, of course Parade is biased and so is Perry. What else is new? Bottom line, imo, is that Perry's a lightweight (even though he undoubtedly has a forceful personality ... but I think you know what I mean). And, I wil not vote for somebody who I consider to be a lightweight for any public office.
 
  • #293
WhoWee said:
my bold
Please clarify your inclusion of Romney - why is he "a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge"?
I just haven't heard him expound on anything in any way that I think indicates that he has a deep or broad knowledge, wrt anything, of the sort that I would want a prospective president to have.

He looks good, has a nice personality, and lots of money. That's about it. But of course that's enough to get elected.

EDIT: Of course, I don't know that he's a lightweight. He just seems like one ... to me.

EDIT2: And I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
 
Last edited:
  • #294
Is lack of understanding of basic science (and/or an effort to sabotage the public school science curriculum) a deal breaker for you?

Yes.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
730
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
74
Views
9K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
239
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top