I appreciate the suggestion, but really, I doubt I'd find great philosophical revelations in knocking a ball around with a stick.
Post after post which, fairly I'll grant, indicates that folks are turned off by over zealous bible thumpers. Ok ...I'll grant these folks do not accelerate the winsomness of being in the GOP.
Well that's a start. ;-)
But that is not what I asked you. I asked you for EVIDENCE that EXPOSURE to the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION brings out the 'conservative voter' latent in some hapless Public School educated fellow.
Well, in this case I'd say it does -- if presenting the evidence that the radical anti-evolutionists are wrong gets them to tone down their public rants, it *will* bring out the "latent conservative voter", at least in a lot of *other* folks, who otherwise would have been scared off by the rants of the radicals. That's a large part of my primary reason for participating in these threads -- to try to get the anti-science folks to pipe down a bit so they'll stop scaring off a lot of conservative votes. If they weren't mouthing off so loudly and so publicly, I really wouldn't be concerned about what they chose to believe or not, nor would I be bringing up the subject myself except at rare times when it was relevant to something else being discussed. I'm not here to "preach" biology. It's just that with the anti-evolutionists being so loud and so numerous -- and so off-putting to folks who know better -- it's important for the sake of conservatism to a) try to get them to tone down a bit, and b) if that can't be done, at least show lurkers that it's possible to be science-literate *and* a conservative, come on in, there's room for all kinds, it's not all just folks itching to restart the Scopes trial.
But to address your more specific question, yes, I *do* believe that a good knowledge, appreciation, and respect for science can and does lead people to conservatism. As many have noted, in broad terms liberalism is about feelings, conservatism is about thinking/pragmatism. In my experience a good grounding in hard-nosed science or engineering produces conservatives more often than liberals -- it instills an ability to tell sense from nonsense, workable solutions from wishful thinking, and that there are right answers and wrong answers when dealing with reality. Joining hands and singing "kumbayah" doesn't get the rocket off the ground, and the parts and labor have to be paid for somehow. The more that people understand science and its methods of finding and testing knowledge, the more they become practical conservatives and the less they become starry-eyed liberals.
You see, we bible types are pretty convinced of something: exposure to GOD creates GOP voters.
I'm not sure that's true. There are plenty of liberal Christians. They may not be *your* kind of Christians, but they were exposed to God and still ended up liberals.
Exposure to Darwin creates selfish survivalists who love all messages from Today's Democrats.
Frankly, this is nonsense. There's some correlation between political outlook and acceptance of evolutionary biology, but not as high a correlation as you seem to assume, and the causation probably runs in the reverse direction -- instead of "Darwin" creating liberals, it's just that liberals are more open to the idea when they hear it, whereas not as many conservatives are (due to more traditional religious views, etc.) I've never heard of anyone who actually switched their political affiliation after "finding" evolution. And contrary to common belief, evolutionary biology really doesn't have any direct applications to politics or political philosophy. About the only non-biological parallel that's an apt one is the dynamics of laissez-faire capitalism, and as I'm sure you realize that's much more popular among *conservatives* than liberals.
This is evidence by experience, and articles like the one I posted here ... where DEMOCRATS are attempting to enshrine Darwin by legal fiat ... a survivalist tactic if there ever was one.
You're really misconstruing that article. No one's trying to "enshrine Darwin by legal fiat". As I mentioned earlier, the motive is just to keep unscientific stuff out of science classrooms. If there was a big sustained movement to shoehorn astrology into science classrooms, they'd eventually get around to putting a foot down on that too, but it wouldn't be about "enshrining" anything else, it'd be about saying, "come *on* folks, this doesn't belong in a science class, we're trying to maintain some standards." And yes, I'd be here posting about why astrology was bunk in response to folks trying to extoll it.
But for the sake of arguement, I'm just hoping in that vast library of links you have, you have just 2 links to studies which show how effective the teaching of evolution is in bringing about GOP voting patterns.
Well, I've got my personal experiences, described here, in the excerpts I posted in a prior post, and have talked abotu elsewhere.
But be honest -- if it turned out that the truth did happen to result in more liberal votes than conservative ones, would you find that a good reason to suppress it, or fail to stand up for it in the face of falsehoods? Really? Because if so, wouldn't that make us as bad as the worst of the liberals and the Islamists? Don't they care more about political power than about truth? Don't they care more about expediency than about being right?
I'm not willing to sacrifice reality, or honesty, or being correct, for the sake of increased political muscle. I hope you aren't either.
"But be honest -- if it turned out that the truth did happen to result in more liberal votes than conservative ones, would you find that a good reason to suppress it, or fail to stand up for it in the face of falsehoods? Really? Because if so, wouldn't that make us as bad as the worst of the liberals and the Islamists? Don't they care more about political power than about truth? Don't they care more about expediency than about being right?
I'm not willing to sacrifice reality, or honesty, or being correct, for the sake of increased political muscle. I hope you aren't either."
This is a really curious end to your post. The facts are rather plain: Islamists don't believe for a second in allowing competing ideas into the minds of kids. No where do you see this message from Christians. However, liberals are a lot like this.
Evolution is not 'the truth' by the way. I like your adherence to 'the truth', but unless I miss my mark, there is no way you actually believe an absolute standard by which to say 'truth exists' even exists. Correct?
As for reality, my reality is clear: I obtained a degree in Science, based on numerical flow models using finite difference methods. I understand the power of math. I also fully understand how to abuse boundary conditions such that the results are publishable.
By what standard do I refrain from that abuse, if I know I won't get caught? Another way to ask this is plain: how does one teach 'honor'?? I'd sincerely, SINCERELY be willing to devour links you may have at the ready on that topic.
I find it very interesting you equate the expediency of the Islamists and Liberals with what the Creationist and I.D. types are trying to do. It is over the top, for I.D. types, especaially are not trying to ban evolution.
By the way, that's a golf term, over the top. It normally results in a slice.
And if evolution is actually TRUE, that what we see is 'all that there is', then by definition, I would be irrational to see my self as any thing but an entity geared to survive and pass my genes on. If I really thought it was true, I would act on it.
In fact, for years, I did. Then I discovered Gravity. Hard to quantify this thing I discovered. Certainly I have trouble coming up w/ a good math equation to describe it. 1+1=3 is my best stab at it.
"I appreciate the suggestion, but really, I doubt I'd find great philosophical revelations in knocking a ball around with a stick. "
You are correct if you are merely knocking it around. But, knocking a ball into a hole in as few strokes as possible? That experience is not for the faint of heart, nor weak of mind.
For those who actually persevere? I testify your doubt is badly informed by your lack of experience. Mr. I., you should still be in good enough health despite 30 years in your field, to walk 18 holes at a par 3 golf course. To hit the ball, as many times as it takes until you hear that sound, 18 times, of the ball thunking into the cup.
I promise the first round won't provide revelations. But by the 10th round or so, the revelations will begin to manifest themselves, and you'll see a Plato in you that you never knew was there...
It's all a question of this: what is imagination made of? Be honest Mr. I, and answer that question.