How Progressive Are You?

[dps]

But it was his statement of fact that 'the republicans are opposed to science' that underlied his reasoning that many of us wanted to question.

My point was to disagree with his statement that Christian fundamentalists are opposed to science in general.  Of course, part of the problem there is that Christian fundmentalists are not some monolithic block when it comes to politics.  I'm sure that there are some who are against science and scientific thought per se, but in my experience that is not a common stance.

[dps]

Edit:  some more of the Kennedy speech, which I cannot imagine from the Rpublicans:

To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.

I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute.

However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.

I don't really think that any politician today is going to call for a program to get us the the moon by the end of the sixties.   

[garbon]

My point was to disagree with his statement that Christian fundamentalists are opposed to science in general.  Of course, part of the problem there is that Christian fundmentalists are not some monolithic block when it comes to politics.  I'm sure that there are some who are against science and scientific thought per se, but in my experience that is not a common stance.

The decline of the metanarrative. :'(

[Savonarola]

I found this article, which seems like a fairly interesting treatment of this subject:

http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-5/p12.html

When I was in graduate school I had a professor who worked at Bell Labs in the 1970s when Soviet white papers first became available to the west.  He said that in many respects the Soviets were ahead of us in electrical engineering theory.  At the same time the Soviet's telephone system was unreliable and had poor quality relative to that of the United States.  It's hard to believe we were so concerned about the accomplishments in pure science from a nation which so obviously failed in science's applications that we would spend billions to keep up.

[Neil]

My point was to disagree with his statement that Christian fundamentalists are opposed to science in general.  Of course, part of the problem there is that Christian fundmentalists are not some monolithic block when it comes to politics.  I'm sure that there are some who are against science and scientific thought per se, but in my experience that is not a common stance.

Nobody really cares what individual Christian fundamentalists think.  By voting as their Focus on the Family masters order them to, they make themselves part of the mass who opposes science.

[Berkut]

For a country in such opposition to science, we sure do spend a lot of money on science.

Just imagine if one of our two major parties was not so diametrically and vehemently opposed to science! We would have probably advanced to being sentient orbs of light.

[saskganesh]

fun and games!

Minister won't confirm belief in evolution
Researchers aghast that key figure in funding controversy invokes religion in science discussion

   ANNE MCILROY

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

March 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM EDT

Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.

"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

A funding crunch, exacerbated by cuts in the January budget, has left many senior researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.

Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.

When asked about those rumours, Mr. Goodyear said such conversations are not worth having.

"Obviously, I have a background that supports the fact I have read the science on muscle physiology and neural chemistry," said the minister, who took chemistry and physics courses as an undergraduate at the University of Waterloo.

"I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. ... I think we need to recognize that we don't know."

Asked to clarify if he was talking about the role of a creator, Mr. Goodyear said that the interview was getting off topic.

Brian Alters, founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, was shocked by the minister's comments.

Evolution is a scientific fact, Dr. Alters said, and the foundation of modern biology, genetics and paleontology. It is taught at universities and accepted by many of the world's major religions, he said.

"It is the same as asking the gentleman, 'Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds," said Dr. Alters. "Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun."

Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said he was flabbergasted that the minister would invoke his religion when asked about evolution.

"The traditions of science and the reliance on testable and provable knowledge has served us well for several hundred years and have been the basis for most of our advancement. It is inconceivable that a government would have a minister of science that rejects the basis of scientific discovery and traditions," he said.

Mr. Goodyear's evasive answers on evolution are unlikely to reassure the scientists who are skeptical about him, and they bolster the notion that there is a divide between the minister and the research community.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home

[Grey Fox]

And people vote for them.

[Camerus]

Why is he being grilled for his private beliefs if he doesn't make them political, or invoke them in the public realm?  There is frankly scant evidence that his Christian beliefs have anything to do with funding cuts.  Seems a bit distasteful and intolerant.

[Barrister]

Why is he being grilled for his private beliefs if he doesn't make them political, or invoke them in the public realm?  There is frankly scant evidence that his Christian beliefs have anything to do with funding cuts.  Seems a bit distasteful and intolerant.

Indeed - especially when they should be criticizing him for being a chiropractor.

[Strix]

171/400  >

[saskganesh]

Why is he being grilled for his private beliefs if he doesn't make them political, or invoke them in the public realm?  There is frankly scant evidence that his Christian beliefs have anything to do with funding cuts.  Seems a bit distasteful and intolerant.

he had a bad answer because it puts him on the defensive. refusing to answer always sucks if you are a public servant -- which, as a member of the government in an important ministry that is under criticism for underfunding important projects, is what he is. fair game.

a better answer is: " that's a dumb question. sure, it's the best scientific theory we have to date. next question?"

[Neil]

And people vote for them.

Indeed.  I'm embarassed for the Tories for having a chiropractor as an MP.

The religious thing is irrelevant.

[The Brain]

Why is he being grilled for his private beliefs if he doesn't make them political, or invoke them in the public realm?  There is frankly scant evidence that his Christian beliefs have anything to do with funding cuts.  Seems a bit distasteful and intolerant.

It isn't about his religious conviction but about his position on science, which can hardly be regarded as a purely personal matter for a man in his position. The problem with even a closet creationist isn't that he thinks that the Bible is correct (let people believe what they will!) but that he thinks that the massive scientific evidence for the conventional theory is not.