Conservatives and Science

NRO: David Frum's Diary ^ | 11/20/08 | James Charles Wilson

[allmendream]

Incapable of following a link? It is obvious that you are incapable of providing one for your assertions.

The “other hand” was that... “the theory could not exclude a role by God.”

Absolutely 100% true. No scientific theory can exclude the role of God.

The Pope's statements are in no way ambiguous. He said “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution”. Do you think his reason for taking this stance was due to the evidence, or due to the Pope wanting to attack the belief of some Christians?

[metmom]

I’m still coming up short on the number of scientists who have been burned at the stake.

[allmendream]

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for holding contrary ideas. He was condemned for other things, but at the root of it was that he thought that there were other planets that would circle other stars (he was an early heliocentrist) and that these planets would have life, and that God would need send them an ‘alien Jesus’ for their salvation.

Not exactly a scientific concept, but I think we can all agree that religious authorities having the ability to burn people to death for holding contrary religious or scientific ideas is a bad thing.

The fifth of his eight charges was...

“Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.”

[Amendment10]

A fish with legs? Who could imagine such a thing? Actually evolution and geology predicted where such a thing would be found, and then they went out and found it; once again showing the usefulness of this replicable and predictive science.

We're evidently not on the same sheet of music.

The problem with the picture that you volunteered is the following, based on one page where the picture appears.

http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_science/fossil_fish.php

Your picture shows what appears to be a plastic, computer-assisted model of an extinct, fish-like creature, probably based in part on somebody's impression of possibly incomplete fossil remains (not shown). But given that plastic models based on computer algorithms do not guarantee historical reality (same type problem with crude global warming computer models), why are you seemingly arguing that this piece of plastic is a precise representation of an extinct animal?

You've evidently fallen into the trap that I've been complaining about, not being on your guard with respect to separating imagination from reality. Indeed, gullible evolutionists seemingly have more faith in their God-given imaginations than Christians have in Jesus.

[valkyry1]

The fish was a bottom dweller or a mud skipper variant. it was still a fish and was not evolving legs feet etc, the fins were still fins, not legs and feet..

Evos sure like those artistical mis-representations though, look at all the debunked and shelved hominids each one having its own artistical representation made up for it.

[allmendream]

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

The point is that they went looking for a fish with early tetrapod features and they found it. Tiktaalik was exactly what they were looking for, exactly where (and when)the theories predicted they would find it.

Thus we are dealing with powerful explanatory and predictive scientific theories.

[allmendream]

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

Powerful explanatory and predictive theories of evolution and geology and paleontology. What do you offer in its place?

[iacovatx]

Hard to know where to begin with this professor’s emotional, non-scholarly, presentation of biased views. I have for some time known some of the productive scholars at the U of Denver and it is disappointing to see a professor, of engineering no less, spout such uninformed distortions.

First, the idea that conservatives all reject the evidence of the age of the earth or the processes underlying its living entities is quite a distorted stereotype. I suspect many if not most conservatives are quite comfortable with the empirical data good scholars have gathered. Other interpretations are welcome—challenges to theory must run the gauntlet of evidence, but envigor the search for improved theory. There are diverse religious views within the conservative house, perhaps that is what you have confused with conservative’s views of science. Among those religious views, you will find many that don’t conform with those you criticize but which are popularly touted in ways to stereotype conservatives and distort our views.

Almost by definition, conservatives are rigorous and empirical in our views of science. Which brings up the climate issue. Consensus is not evidence. Crichton said it more eloquently than I. However, I note that you mix “countries” into the evidence. Countries and political movements have agendas, not evidence-based theories. Two criticisms we conservatives have of leftists is they confuse opinions with evidence and their desires with the truth.

I could offer corrections and counter arguments to much of the content of this piece but don’t have time right now. I will leave it with this summary of my views. Conservatism is better aligned with good science than is socialism. Let me add that leftists are a great danger to science and the advancement of knowledge. Further, a successful economy is a critical factor in the ability to develop scientists, research institutes, and innovations. Without the resources of a good economy, you will have little opportunity to advance science. They are mutually compatible and not at odds as your comments might be interpreted to suggest.