Every other word in your screed was misspelled.
And if you don't know how to spell CONSERVATIVE with an S, you are not one.
I'm not "including you in that statement", I was pinging you to the post, for reasons I explained *in* that post.
[svcw, you expressed surprise that one could conclude that there are science-illiterate religious conservatives.]
NO, MY REAL SURPRISE IS THOSE WHO BELIVE THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A RELIOUGS CONCERVATIVE THAT ONE IS “SCIENCE-ILLITERATE”
I'm not aware that anyone *does* "BELIVE [sic] THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A RELIOUGS [sic] CONCERVATIVE [sic] THAT ONE IS “SCIENCE-ILLITERATE”". At least no one on FreeRepublic, if that was your implication.
There are of course some whacko liberals who are so simple-minded that they believe that being religious at all is synonymous with being science-illiterate, just as there are some whacko conservatives who are so simple-minded that they believe that being liberal at all is synonymous with being anti-God, or who believe that understanding evolutionary biology is synonymous with being an atheist. But those are hardly remarkable observations -- there will always be some idiots.
Thus, when you said that you were "baffled" by the fact that "there are those who believe that religious conservatives are 'science illiterate'", I presumed that you couldn't be surprised by the fact that there exist at least a *few* people who are so blinded that they think that to be a religious conservative is to automatically be science illiterate, and as a result I took your comment to be expressing surprise that *any* religious conservatives might be construed as science-illiterate. This was the reason I pinged you to a post which demonstrated that yes, indeed, some of them really are.
[Ask Mamzelle to actually address the contents of post #107, and you'll quickly realize that there are. Now there's nothing wrong with not being conversant on any given topic, of course, UNLESS the person ignorant on [topic X] is arrogant enough to spend a great deal of time attacking [topic X] and denouncing it and attempting to "lecture" and "correct" people on it without actually having any clue what in the hell they're talking about (by actually *understanding* topic X and having a solid knowledge of it)...]
WELL, THANK YOU-THAT “ITS OK TO BE A CONCERVATIVE”.
You appear to be entirley unclear on the difference between the word "conversant" (what I actually wrote) and "CONCERVATIVE [sic]"... Please, learn to read. And while you're at it, learn to spell and use whitespace.
YOUR COMMENT THAT A PERSON MAY BE “IGNORENT” ON A SUBJECT…. I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION.
You would disagree with me when I say that it's okay for someone to be ignorant on some topics that they have not yet looked into? Fascinating.
BECAUSE A PERSON DISAGREES WITH YOU AND USES A DIFFERENT SET TO ARGUE THEIR POINT DOES NOT MAKE THEM IGGNORATE.
I didn't say that it was. What makes them "IGGNORATE [sic]" is actually being ignorant -- not knowing even the most basic, elementary material on the topic, much less having any familiarity with the more in-depth material.
Is English your first language?
IT APPEARS THAT ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOUR SETS, IS IGNORENT OF THE “FACT”.
No, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. In fact, I find that exploring the reasons for the disagreement often helps me better understand my own position, and frequently leads me to learn something of which I was not previously aware.
However, I have spent decades learning about this topic, and it's not hard for me to spot when someone is saying things that are based on true ignorance of the actual field, the actual evidence, or the actual body of knowledge. I'm not talking about different *conclusions* -- reasonable people can disagree on some points, surely -- I'm talking about true unfamiliarity with the material. A real inability to discuss the topic on its actual merits, due to lack of any real knowledge about it.
Almost without exception, the anti-evolutionists are grossly ignorant of the field they're attempting to attack. And what little they do "know" about it is mostly just flat wrong -- it's based on the gross misrepresentations and falsehoods from the creationist propaganda mills.
[There are countless religious conservatives, a large number of them right here on FreeRepublic, who viciously attack evolutionary biology and other fields of science, as well as the people who practice in those fields or who are knowledgeable of those fields and defend them from false attacks, despite not having any real clue about the topics they crusade against.]
HERE AGAIN BECAUSE THE PERSON ARGUES WITH YOU THEY DO NOT HAVE A “GRASP” OF THE FACTS, SO THEREFORE THEY ARE IGNORANT.
"HERE AGAIN" you are simply stating your PRESUMPTION, based on absolutely nothing, about why I have reached the conclusions I have. You simply *assume* that it "must be" because people disagree with me. And yet, you have no basis whatsoever for making that allegation. You're making the error of mistaking your empty presumptions for established fact.
[It gets really old after a while. And worse, this kind of "I don't understand science but I know it's wrong and evil and part of the atheistic conspiracy" folks are very vocal in the public discourse, to the point where a great many people who would otherwise be sympathetic to conservative politics run away screaming after having gotten the impression (which is not far from correct) that conservatism contains a large segment of folks who are wild-eyed anti-science Luddites.]
I HAVE NEVER MEET A CHRISTIAN WHO HAS SAID SCIENCE IS BAD OR EVIL.
The ones who feel that way seldom say it outright (although on occasion they do), but it's very clear in their rants. And many have said outright that portions of science (evolutionary biology, for example) are bad and/or evil. You should drop into more of the "crevo" threads, there are quite a few of them who do that.
I HAVE HEARD THEM SAY THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THE DIRECTION SCIENCE MAY BE TAKING IE CLONING. I HAVE NEVER MET A CHRISTIAN WHO IS ANTI-SCIENCE.
I have.
I HAVE MEET CHRISTIANS WHO ARE ANTI-ARROGANT SO CALLED SCIENTS AND THEIR IRRATIONAL FEAR THAT THERE MAY BE A HIGHER POWER. THIS IRRATIONAL FEAR I BELIEVE STEMS FROM THE FACT THEY FEAR THERE MAY IN FACT BE A JUDGEMENT.
I'll let that rant speak for itself.
And you're very, very mistaken about the motivations of scientists. Additionally, you're exhibiting more than a whiff of anti-science feelings yourself when you shriek bitterly about "ARROGANT SO CALLED SCIENTS [sic]".
[This is similar to how the more moderate liberal movements lose support because people are scared off by the more whackjob liberal nuts. This is *not* a good thing for conservatism. I personally know dozens of people who might otherwise consider voting for conservatives or Republicans, but every time I try to point out how many of their personal views match those of the conservative movement, they recoil in horror and start listing the various antics of the kind of anti-intellectual extremists]
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE YOU SPEAK OF WHO ARE ANTI-INTELECTUALS
How many would you like me to list? Let's start with Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, HenryMorris, and Philip Johnson, to name just a few. They and their cohorts and their lockstep followers have done all they can to undermine confidence in science and in any method by which knowledge is obtained and verified (other than by looking in the Bible for it or checking whether it appears to contradict something in the Bible), in countless different ways. They are actively undermining the search for objective, verifiable knowledge.
[That have given conservatism a bad name by association. There's nothing wrong with being religious -- in fact, the *majority* of American "evolutionists" are themselves Christians. But there is a very vocal, very strident, very intolerant, very anti-science segment of religious conservatives who are *not* doing the conservative cause any favors.]
AND I COULD SAY THE SAME OF ANTI-RELIGIOUS-CHRISTIAN-CONCERVATIVE SUDOINTELLECTUAL SCIENE COMMUNITY.
If I ever meet anyone who actually matches your wildly over-the-top description, I'll be sure to pass that on. To date, however, I haven't. I doubt you have either, although you're pretty free with your wild-eyed accusations and presumptions.
Calm down and take a deep breath. You are embarrassing yourself.
Wow. And I thought I'd had too many beers tonight.
I guess not ...
That's really not true. There are only a relatively few conservatives who are trying hard to perpetuate the myth that conservatism is synonymous with willful ignorance of basic biology. Apparently Coulter is foolishly believing there are enough of them to keep her book sales up but, I believe she's just jumped off the cliff of credibility.