February 18, 2004

The Union of Concerned Scientists on Bush

Posted by Arcane Gazebo at February 18, 2004 1:09 PM

The Union of Concerned Scientists has issued a statement condemning the Bush Administration's anti-science policies, signed by 20 Nobel laureates (including, I feel compelled to mention, Caltech president David Baltimore). So it's not just me that feels this way. (I say that because I raised this issue among some conservative, scientist friends, and they looked at me as if I had just asserted the flatness of the earth.)

The blogger I've linked to seems to think this is bad news for Bush. But in a country where 60% of the population believes the biblical creation story is literally true, how many people really care that much what scientists have to say, about anything?


Well, uh, I guess you and I make two.

Posted by: Dad | February 19, 2004 4:44 AM

Travis, why does everything have to be so black and white? Can't someone believe in some sort of higher power and care what scientists have to say?

Posted by: Tracy | February 19, 2004 6:19 AM

I'm not talking about anyone who believes in God here. I'm talking about people who believe a literal interpretation of the creation story, i.e. that species did not arise by evolution and that the earth is 6000 years old. In order to believe these things one has to care very little about what scientists say.

Posted by: Arcane Gazebo | February 19, 2004 9:26 AM

Well, that is very true.

I'm fairly overwhelmed by those poll numbers. Are people really that ignorant?

I know that said people would argue that it all comes down to faith. "You have to have faith in the word of the Bible..." That's fine, I am all for faith. I have faith in a lot of things, most of all my parents' love for me. That's real, that's something I know for sure and I can count on. But a book that was written forever ago by who-knows-who and rewritten how many times? I have a really hard time putting my faith in that.

Can't a person have faith and not act like an ostrich with its head stuck in the sand? What sort of explanation do they have for fossils? When faced with irrefutable proof of evolution, what do these people have to say? I'm flabbergasted...

Posted by: Tracy | February 19, 2004 10:36 AM

Check out the talk.origins faq for an idea of the kinds of arguments employed by creationists. It leaves out some of the sillier ones, like "God planted the fossils to test our faith".

I think part of the problem is the "only true believers get into heaven" doctrine that many Christian sects adhere to. Someone who believes this won't be likely to risk disbelieving any part of the religion. Evidence, scientific or otherwise, becomes irrelevant -- these people aren't asking "is the book trustworthy" but rather "will I be punished if I don't trust the book?"

Posted by: Arcane Gazebo | February 19, 2004 11:20 AM

This all just strengthens the argument for a stricter adherence to the separation of church and state...our kids don't need to be brainwashed in school as well as at home...

My father would kill me if he just heard me call religion "brainwashing"...unfortunately that's what it ends up seeming to be in my opinion. A lot of religious sects don't want you to think for yourself, just a c c e p t without question...

Posted by: Tracy | February 19, 2004 2:26 PM
Post a comment