Posted on 10/20/2005 6:17:41 PM PDT by furball4paws
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=1
Chapter 1: The Threat IN THE SUMMER OF 2001, long before his reelection and even before he became a "wartime president," George W. Bush found himself in a political tight spot. He responded with a morsel of scientific misinformation so stunning, so certain to be exposed by enterprising journalists (as indeed it was), that one can only wonder what Bush and his handlers were thinking, or whether they were thinking at all. The issue was embryonic stem cell research, and Bush's nationally televised claim—that "more than sixty genetically diverse" embryonic stem cell lines existed at the time of his statement—counts as one of the most flagrant purely scientific deceptions ever perpetrated by a U.S. president on an unsuspecting public. Bush's assertion, made on August 9, 2001, came as the president sought to escape a political trap of his own making. Campaigning in 2000, Bush told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that taxpayer money "should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos." The statement threw a bone to Bush's pro-life followers, who view the ball of about one hundred fifty cells constituting a five-day-old embryo as deserving of the same moral and legal protections as fully developed human beings. Accordingly, these religious conservatives consider embryonic stem cell research—the study of excess embryos donated for research from in vitro fertilization clinics—ethically abhorrent. But some prominent Republicans, such as Utah senator Orrin Hatch, favored the research because of its scientific promise. As the issue came to a head in the summer of 2001, Bush publicly agonized over what to do. Finally, he opted for a supposed compromise: he would allow federal funding, but only for research on preexisting cell lines.
(Excerpt) Read more at waronscience.com ...
They don't have to believe it to bash us with it politically.
Perhaps, I've never understood the evo/creation debate anyways (I suppose at this point I should say I am a creationist, just so everyone knows where I stand). It isn't as if a leftist is going to walk up to you and go "Oh an pro-evolution conservative! You're cool!" The left is going to bash conservatives regardless. They might even call you a creationist just because you ARE conservative (leftists and the truth don't get along very well)
I don't see how conservative in-fighting is going to make conservatives invulnerable to leftist attack.
It used to always be Bush's fault. Now, it's our fault.
The internecine war in the ranks of conservatives between scientists and creationists will, of course, remain off the radar of the MSM. Somehow we conservative scientists must either secede, cleanse the ranks or make it more than abundantly clear that conservativism does not abide with superstitious, supernatural nonsense.
Only read the first paragraph. As a scientist who has had the displeasure of dealing with journalists, I found plenty of laughs at the liberal journalists' self-exaultation but scarcely any truth to the matter.
We don't have to worry about you or me. But many Americans will see the Dover trial as an attack on Science and that is actually what happens on many Crevo threads. They won't like that. This "infighting" is an opening for the Left to score points with those who are "moderate" (yuch I hate that word). That could swing several elections and certainly would have swung the 2000 Presidential election.
Any appearance of irrationality gives you enemy a club to beat you with.
"The internecine war in the ranks of conservatives between scientists and creationists will, of course, remain off the radar of the MSM"
We have a trial now with national attention and screeds like this. Is this "off the radar of the MSN"?
The screed can be laughable, but for politics it just has to look good. No truth is necessary.
The internecine war within conservatives' ranks is. Us conservatives are all being painted by the same brush, to wit: "a grand clash between modern American science and modern American conservatism may well have been inevitable." (from the article).
I was actually going to type, "Thank God we have you here to tell us how to think." Then the irony of that struck me.
You do understand that Americans have believed in God for many generations, right? Why are we only now in danger of plunging into the abyss? Are you afraid of what the Europeans might think of us?
I grew up believing in God, and I have done okay, as have millions... hundreds of millions... of your fellow countrymen. I believe this is and always has been about more than "science."
I agree with you on "moderates" I don't know that they really exist outside of the media agitation machine come election time. It seems to me there are three classes of voter republican, democrat, and disinterested.
Also, is anyone really following the Dover trial that closely? (I confess that I haven't) will anyone care come 2008? Or even next year?
Is creationism v. evolution that hot of a political topic outside of a political forum such as this?
BTW, I am not stringing you along to drop anything on you :) If I do, you have the right to yell at me until your keyboard breaks. I just haven't been too involved in this on FR and I am curious about the broader picture.
I have not heard anyone discuss this trial outside the pro-evolution mob on free republic. Most people don't get this distressed over the faith of others. Really!
Do you think the MSN will discover this schism? Could it split off enough to, say, the Libertarian Party, to significantly hurt conservatives. Please don't fool youself. They know. They may not know yet how to use it, but they know.
This has been going on for some time. Not surprisingly, many conservatives will support a war on science.
And lets be completely fair: Presidents are notorious for flagrantly perpetrating purely scientific deceptions! And this one is a doozie! ;-)
It bears repeating.
Several reviewers have criticized Mooney for exactly that. They point out that there's also a Leftist War on Science, albeith a smaller one so far.
I got him to admit it in the Q&A session.
They'll do their best to ignore it.
I truly think it's a big-time Achille's heel for us becuase: 1. of the MSM's penchant to misrepresent conservatives and, 2. we conservatives DO have a problem in our ranks.
I can't see the Libertarian party as a savior for this predictament, either.
We need a prominent movement such as, for an example, "ConSci" Conservatives for Science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.