Is the GOP Anti-Science?
Adam Schwartzman ·
August 29, 2011 at 6:28pm
Here's a question that has been on my mind. It was articulated recently by both Jon Huntsman and Paul Krugman, and is a frightening prospect.
Is the Republican party becoming the anti-science party?
As Huntsman said:
The minute that the Republican Party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012.... I can't remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a party that was antithetical to science. I'm not sure that's good for our future, and it's not a winning formula.
Thoughts?
- Comment (118)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
But consider the basis to their statements. The GOP is anti science, why exactly? Because many of the candidates don't buy into the AGW models? Because they don't find embryonic stem cell research ethically acceptable? Or is it because the GOP would axe funding to scientific research in an attempt to seriously address the debt?
First the Huntsmans and Krugmans of the world need to articulate precisely what it is that they find so antithetical to science within the GOP, and then we can have a real discussion. These blanket statements and generalities are indicative of lazy thinking.
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
Right. I think things that have nothing to do with science are conflated with science. Believing that AGW does not require massive government programs to be dealt with doesn't mean you don't know the science about AGW. Realizing that literally all of the advances with stem cells have happened with non-embryonic stem cells doesn't mean you're anti science. Believing that embryos shouldn't be destroyed doesn't mean you're anti science. I need to know more about what we mean when we say "anti science."
I get that Huntsman has locked up the all-important media primary, but his statement lacks specific.
I'm also reminded of how much science pushed for eugenics, etc. many decades ago. Right-thinking people were on the "wrong" side of science then, I guess. But I'd rather be on the right side of ethics.
May '10
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
I'd expect conservatives to be more cautious about science, given what Burke described as a bias toward prudence and humility, along with a deep skepticism about utopian planning.
But when it comes to global warming and the abortion-related question of what constitutes a human life, I'd argue that the generally conservative positions -- skepticism of the former and expansive views of the latter --are more consistent with scientific reasoning.
I've never understood the evidence behind young Earth arguments of our origins (i.e., the idea that the earth is only some thousands of years old), so I'd probably put this into the anti-science camp, but I don't think this view is embraced by a significant proportion of conservatives, despite the Left's efforts to paint it as such.
Jun '10
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
Diane Ellis, Ed.: But consider the basis to their statements. The GOP is anti science, why exactly? Because many of the candidates don't buy into the AGW models? Because they don't find embryonic stem cell research ethically acceptable? Or is it because the GOP would axe funding to scientific research in an attempt to seriously address the debt?
First the Huntsmans and Krugmans of the world need to articulate precisely what it is that they find so antithetical to science within the GOP, and then we can have a real discussion. These blanket statements and generalities are indicative of lazy thinking. · Aug 29 at 8:09am
Exactly.....what is the premise for these claims?
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
I think a lot of people hold this view who believe that science and religion are a contradiction. Somehow, because the Republican party has more Christians, they have less individuals who think critically and seriously about the issues. (The irony that all liberal beliefs are held on emotional utopian grounds gets particularly thick here).
To anyone who is interested I would strongly recommend Think by John Piper.
A cool short video about his book can be seen here >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F1V2fZS7yA
May '10
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
Science is great, but it needs to know its place and its limitations.
For far too many, science has become a kind of pseudo religion, explaining everything about who we are, why we are here, and ultimate truth. I believe conservatives are rightly skeptical toward this view of science.
I view it as a tool for learning about the physical world. To the degree that its experiments and theories are repeatable and consistent, it can be a useful tool to predict the future and make the most out of our natural resources. To say that it has or can reach all the answers and predict things which are ultimately unknowable (future situations with complex factors not fully understood and never reproduced in a controlled test environment, for example) is hubris and overreach.
Jun '10
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
I disagree with Romney and Huntsman who believe in AGW. Whether science is being conducted in this field or smothered is at issue. So, Huntsman's concerns about the GOP being anti-science because it doesn't accept the fashionable environmental alarmism and the computer models currently being used to support AGW are misplaced.
I am concerned, however, that a 2007 Gallup poll found that 68% of Republicans rejected the Theory of Evolution. That is a stunning statistic and does, I feel, reflect badly on the party. If still accurate and if taken alone this would indeed imply that the party is anti-science. People of course have the right to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or that evolution is wrong. But it does ignore the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Given Perry's stance on Creationism - the real target of Huntsman's remarks - and that Perry went out of his way to appoint Young Earth Creationists to the Texas State Board of Education to change science curricula I would suspect that Perry also is a YEC. If he's the nominee I will vote for him but hope he gets some learnin'.
Aug '11
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
It seems to me that when candidates and their supporters talk about "science" (ironic quotes intended), they're signaling to their fellow atheists/agnostics. "We're not like those icky religious people, are we, lads?" It's a ridiculous pretension, half fashion-trend, half tribal feedback loop.
"New Atheism," has become a sort of religion itself with "science" (again, ironic quotes) as its god. Its devotees are far more likely to seek the destruction of the unbeliever than those icky Christians they hate.
More worrisome to me are the young "Christians" (ironic) who strive to be recognized among their nonbelieving peers by likewise adopting the tenets of "science."
(I really need to cut down on the ironic quoting.)
Aug '11
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
I just can't figure out why it's important that the president pass a "science" purity test. Particularly given that the prominent issues in our country are so far removed from the question of evolution/creation. As suggested elsewhere I think this non-issue is the focus of the Democrat-media complex because it's a neat distraction from the horrible economy and joblessness.
Jun '10
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
DrewInWisconsin: It seems to me that when candidates and their supporters talk about "science" (ironic quotes intended), they're signaling to their fellow atheists/agnostics. "We're not like those icky religious people, are we, lads?" It's a ridiculous pretension, half fashion-trend, half tribal feedback loop.
"New Atheism," has become a sort of religion itself with "science" (again, ironic quotes) as its god. Its devotees are far more likely to seek the destruction of the unbeliever than those icky Christians they hate.
More worrisome to me are the young "Christians" (ironic) who strive to be recognized among their nonbelieving peers by likewise adopting the tenets of "science."
(I really need to cut down on the ironic quoting.) · Aug 29 at 9:21am
Gee, I thought Huntsman and Romney were both Mormons.
Jun '10
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
DrewInWisconsin
I just can't figure out why it's important that the president pass a "science" purity test. Particularly given that the prominent issues in our country are so far removed from the question of evolution/creation. As suggested elsewhere I think this non-issue is the focus of the Democrat-media complex because it's a neat distraction from the horrible economy and joblessness. · Aug 29 at 9:27am
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I would vote for him.
Mar '11
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
Three points:
1) There are those on the center-Left who possess an almost unfailing faith in scientific progress. They equate it with moral progress, and anything that questions certain developments in science—say, genetic engineering or cloning—regardless of the reason for doing so, is immediately decried as anti-science.
2) At the same time, this decrying and hand-wringing is easy to do and easy to get away with, because too many Republicans—and by this I mean less Republican voters and more large media outlets that claim to speak for them: often talk radio, for instance—fail to make distinctions clearly enough between science and certain political causes that mask themselves in science’s technical language. They rail against science carelessly and their lack of nuance hurts us by teaching the wrong lessons.
3) Conservatives in a liberal society ought to be pro-standards and pro-science: we ought to defend the skeptical, cautious scientific method against the radical Left that asserts nothing can be true, the center-Left who simple-mindedly believes technology can answer all problems without creating any of its own, and the far, far right that rejects all scientific inquiry out of fundamentalism.
May '10
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
Brian Watt:
I am concerned, however, that a 2007 Gallup poll found that 68% of Republicans rejected the Theory of Evolution. That is a stunning statistic and does, I feel, reflect badly on the party. If still accurate and if taken alone this would indeed imply that the party is anti-science. People of course have the right to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or that evolution is wrong. But it does ignore the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
These numbers concern me, too, but they actually puzzle me more than they cause concern. I travel in some pretty rock-ribbed conservative circles and I can't think of one person I know who would respond thus to a poll question on evolution. Maybe I'm just missing something, but I really can't figure for the life of me where that percentage is coming from.
Aug '11
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
Brian Watt
DrewInWisconsin
I just can't figure out why it's important that the president pass a "science" purity test. Particularly given that the prominent issues in our country are so far removed from the question of evolution/creation. As suggested elsewhere I think this non-issue is the focus of the Democrat-media complex because it's a neat distraction from the horrible economy and joblessness. · Aug 29 at 9:27am
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I would vote for him. · Aug 29 at 9:40am
I didn't miss it. My question is why a candidate's belief about evolution is even an issue.
Sep '10
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
Yes, because both Huntsman and Krugman have particle physics degrees. Give me a break.
Aug '11
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
I'm reminded of Mollie's Dominionism-ists. To the extent that these people exist at all, they're such a small percentage of Christianity as to not really be a concern.
I'm calling this a fake issue that's introduced mainly in an attempt to divide and conquer. (And, of course, to avoid talking about the economy.)
Mar '11
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
Science, in the eyes of liberals, is defined as follows:
1: All Scientific claims are believed.
[Even when science has been corrupted by funding streams, as in AGW]
2: Anyone who does not support lots of government $ for science is evil.
[Even though government funding has killed innovative research paths, and squeezed most alternative funding out much as Welfare ended Church charities]
3: It is necessary (though I have no idea why) for Evolution to be considered Truth.
My in-laws are high level government scientists. We are unable to even have a conversation about science. And I run a company doing basic physics and materials research. It may have something to do with the fact that my company refuses to take government money. :-)
Edited on August 29, 2011 at 6:59pmJun '10
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
DrewInWisconsin
Brian Watt
DrewInWisconsin
I just can't figure out why it's important that the president pass a "science" purity test. Particularly given that the prominent issues in our country are so far removed from the question of evolution/creation. As suggested elsewhere I think this non-issue is the focus of the Democrat-media complex because it's a neat distraction from the horrible economy and joblessness. · Aug 29 at 9:27am
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I would vote for him. · Aug 29 at 9:40am
I didn't miss it. My question is why a candidate's belief about evolution is even an issue. · Aug 29 at 9:49am
Because it demonstrates just how much scientific evidence he or she is willing to ignore. It is an indication - not a test - of how receptive one is to scientific knowledge. Perry already is sympathetic to Young Earth Creationism. Should we expect that he will appoint science advisors who are YECs? Have we any assurance that he won't? Would it be acceptable that NASA or the NIH be run by YECs? It is not the ultimate test for a candidate but it is revealing.
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
DrewInWisconsin
I just can't figure out why it's important that the president pass a "science" purity test. Particularly given that the prominent issues in our country are so far removed from the question of evolution/creation. As suggested elsewhere I think this non-issue is the focus of the Democrat-media complex because it's a neat distraction from the horrible economy and joblessness. · Aug 29 at 9:27am
Drew, I agree that the question of evolution/creation is far from a pertinent issue in the 2012 election.
I think the real issue, repeating Huntsman's quote, is that "We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012." A candidate who rejects evolution in the face of the staggering amount of supporting evidence comes across to masses of voters as either stubborn or painfully uninformed.
Mar '11
Re: Is the GOP Anti-Science?
Religious people think science explains the *how* - but not the *why*.
But liberals think science has all the answers.
By definition, religious people are anti-science.