"By 1616 the attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus' ideas. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture", and suspending Copernicus's De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. Acting on instructions from the Pope before the decree was issued, Cardinal Bellarmine informed Galileo that it was forthcoming, that the ideas it condemned could not be "defended or held", and ordered him to abandon them. " The very definition of conservative is being slow to accept new knowledge and reluctance to change. Thus conservatives will always be the last to acknowledge new facts. And science is moving faster every year. Science is also making religion look silly, which really pisses them off. And now science wants to take away the high octane, profligate American capitalism with all this talk of reducing carbon pollution. And science comes from those liberal terrorist camps called colleges and we all know what happens there. Knowledge and new facts.
I'm an economic conservative, it simply means that I'm opposed to liberal social redistributive schemes, which themselves are about as old as people are. There was this new revolutionary thinker that came along once, his name was Marx. He had new ideas, new 'facts', how did that work out? Science does not want to 'take away capitalism', science is not about policy choices nor does it ever say anything about them. Only liberals like you want to take away capitalism. and those liberal university terrorists waged war on science in the 90s and lost, read about the Sokal affair. Humanities departments are nothing more than publicly sanctioned liberal churches, and I do mean that liberalism has no more scientific justification than religion. I am a scientist, obviously you are not. Science is simply a process which aims to uncover nature's secrets, it has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism although many use it for political purposes. I guess I can let this insult go knowing that you are an ignoramious, sort of a twist from the Hangover movie line- you are too stupid to insult me.
Conservatives aren't losing trust in science. They're losing trust in theories. Atheistic evolution is a theory. Man-made global warming is a theory. Over-population is a theory. Peak oil/food/water is a theory. All of these theories (the Liberal community reports as scientific "fact") sport holes large enough you could drive a truck through.
Evolution is not "atheistic". Come on. Evolution is in fact, a fact, discovered and confirmed in science. You start out worse than wrong really, so no reason to consider there's any merit in saying everything else is a so called theory. Set yourself up as the quintessential demonstration of that lost trust in science from the start. fyi Any scientific theory will always contain supporting facts.
this statement pretty much sums it up for him. he doubts everything science has to offer yet he says this "Still, you'll never be able to rattle my cage about religion, because I personally know Christ exists, He is God, and the spiritual realm is very real."achilles28
And is god the truck driver? Meanwhile, are you employing the same standard of evidence and evaluation for your god belief, or are you using a handy, self-serving double standard there?
All scientific theories will leave god out, or they would not be scientific. God is not testable, nor does it offer predictive power. I make a distinction between what we have observed up to now and the predictive models for the future. The noisy temperature measurements indicate we have warmed over the last 100 years so I'm buying it. The predictive models extrapolate to the next 100 years and are at various levels of plausibility, they are not well established causual models such as newtonian mechanics so skepticism is warrented. The problem I have is the societal response to such science, and that this field has been corrupted with leftist political agendas. Liberals seem to think that only they have the 'proper' response, if we keep warming. I have no idea how they hijacked that argument other than the well known fact that the left took over greenpeace, the EPA, and various gov't organs. huh? As a matter of practicality, I think there are too many people. My evidence is the world around me. Never heard of peak water, but anyway the debate seems to center on when oil runs out, not if. Theories, laws, 'facts' are all terms that are thrown around loosly. The semantics game is a substitution for understanding. Scientific theories have a continuous range of confidence values associated with them. Although all theories are subject to constant review, modification, or even rejection, some have been tested so much they are now accepted as 'fact'. They are so factual that we engineer everyday devices based upon them. I bet you have never thought "I wonder if Maxwell's electromagnetic theory still works?" when you are about to make a cell phone call. I have because it would be interesting, and it shows just how much all people trust certain scientific theories. The 'theory' of special relativity is actually more accurate then Newton's second 'law' since the latter is a slow velocity approximation to the former. Something to keep in mind when using these words. Great, now enter politics and religion and all the perverse ways people use science to bolster their personal agendas. Some science is so easily corrupted, such as medical drug trials, or any medical study really, that one should always mistrust it until time and more trials have proven something useful. My own doctor told me that some 50% of findings in todays medical journals will be overturned in 10 years. I think the question itself about losing trust in science is far too unsophisticated and loaded politically. Any prudent scientist themselves should not trust new results, but trusting that the process of skeptical inquiry and experimentation will eventually yield something useful is what it is all about. Not trusting the results of something as politically corrupted and newly evolving as climate science is a wise thing to do. However evolution is not such a thing, evolution has been under the microscope for quite some time and is well established. The exact mechanisms of evolution are under debate, but the overarching hypothesis is not. It is the same messy process that brought you the cell phone and computer, so I do have high confidence that evolution is on solid ground.