Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
But, those with a degree in science generally understand the arguments for and against.
They, in overwhelming numbers, come down on the side of science.
And this is for religious, or scientific, reasons?
#####Most of the Religious Right moved to the GOP in response to Nixon's Southern Strategy. As has been pointed out before, they are mostly W.J.Bryan Progressives; they like Big Government on "their" issues.#####
You're very wrong about that. From the Civil War through the 1920s, both parties had active liberal and conservative wings. Ever hear of George Norris, Ole Kvale, & "Fightin'" Bob LaFollette? They were leaders of the GOP's left wing. The Progressive movement crossed party lines. It was Democrat in the South because you had to run as a Democrat there due to hostility to the Republicans dating back to the Civil War. But in the North, Progressives ran as Republicans. They practically took over some Northern states, including Minnesota & Wisconsin. Eventually, they spun off from both major parties and started new parties.
Ever wonder why the Democrat Party in Minnesota is called the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party? It's because the Farmer-Labor Party, a progressive leftist group, was so popular there that it rivaled the Democrats and the GOP. Eventually, it merged with the Democrats.
As long as both parties had an active conservative wing, Southerners sided with the Democrats because of lingering hostility to the earlier loss of states' rights under the Republicans. A few populist big government types won in the South (Huey Long, as an example) but far fewer than in the North. The South sent a stalwart block of conservative Democrats to Congress.
The New Deal saw the national Democratic Party move leftward under FDR. That might have strengthened the GOP in Dixie had the Republicans offered an alternative. They didn't. Their response to the New Deal was largely to go along with it. Their presidential candidates offered New Deal Lite to the voters. 1932 through 1963 saw the Republicans under the control of what became known as the Eastern Establishment wing, sometimes called the Rockefeller wing, of the party. It was mushy, "moderate", and ineffective. It was Democrat Lite. Other than the election of Eisenhower, who had war hero popularity, the GOP was dead in the water for most of those years.
They made no gains in the South precisely because they offered no conservative alternative. Besides, the South was electing conservative Democrats. While the GOP was busy going along with 90% of the New Deal, Dixie Democrats such as Tom Connally (Texas), Walter George (Georgia), Josiah Bailey (North Carolina), Cotton Ed Smith (South Carolina), and Carter Glass & Harry Byrd (Virginia) were providing the only opposition to the New Deal agenda. Senator George infuriated FDR to the point that he recruited a candidate to run against George in the Democrat primary (George won).
1964 saw the arrival of Goldwater, a conservative who challenged Rockefeller's Yankee liberals for control of the GOP. Guess what? The South listened. Five of the six states Goldwater carried were in the South (the other was his homestate of Arizona). So Nixon's Southern Strategy made all the sense in the world. With the Democrats further to the left than ever, and with Southerners being very conservative, they were winnable for the GOP. And they've been with us ever since, minus one election where the Democrats put up an unknown Southern governor who successfully passed himself off as a conservative (Carter in 1976).
Now, I know this upsets some of you. You think Southerners are stoooopid and you'd rather we were gone so that the GOP could be more like the Democrats, sort of Liberal-Lite. But we've ALWAYS been conservative and we moved into the GOP because it became our home after A) the Democrats moved too far to the left for us and B) the GOP provided a viable alternative, not just a slightly more modest version of the Democrats.
Stochastic or Patrick, do you care to explain your strategy for winning an electoral college majority without the South? I'd love to hear it, because other than the South all the GOP has are the Heartland & Rocky Mountain states. A big area on the map, but not many electoral votes. Not to mention that you seem to think some of those states (Kansas, for example) are full of stooopid people, too.
I had finished posting for the day, but I saw that the attacks on the South had begun again so I felt compelled to post.
BTTT
Science has long believed in intelligent design, they use only names but it is the same. They have looked out into space and seen lines on mars and said, this is proof that life was on Mars, how else could these canals be built. They send radio signals into space and listen for answers from intelligent life. They do this because they believe certain events or things only happen if made are cause by someone(thing) with intelligence. It is impossible that random radio waves to produce signals we can interpret as a circle. But when others us these same logic to promote that man was made not just random chance. I is not a valid though.
Fixed that for ya, no charge. :)
Theology and biology are not both science. One is religion (faith, revelation, belief). The other is science (naturalism, data, theory).
If you cannot differentiate between the diverse methodologies, you need to do some studying. Really, there is a significant methodological difference!
Barry Goldwater was very pro-science. I feel confidant were he alive today, he would have fallen squarely into the "science in science class, creation in Sunday school" camp.
That's great! What theory did you have in mind? (As far as I know, there is no opposing theory in this field. Did you discover something new?)
Hint: ID and creationism are not theories, but religious beliefs.
[Like your tagline.]
The theory of evolution (what you call "Darwinism") has withstood the attacks of religious believers for 150 years, and is still gaining ground.
When Darwin wrote, in 1859, there were a few fossil hominids known, now there are tens of thousands.
The advent of genetics a few decades ago could have ended the current theory of evolution for good, but... all the new data just supported it!
Sorry, your religious belief does not constitute scientific data.
imho . . .
hogwash.
Other than the silliness about the earth being only 6,000 or so years old . . . there's sufficient SCIENTIFIC reason to at least question evolutionary THEORY rather severely.
Panspermia will probably usurp evolution's place soonis anyway. Seems like the puppet masters and THEIR masters have scheduled it now for decades.
We shall certainly see.
All this papal, ecclesiastical wailing in the halls of the religion of science is a hoot. There's more than sufficient shaving facts; distorting facts; mixing truth with falsehood; etc. etc. etc. IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS to keep the religion of science cleaning it's own act up for more than a decade or tree. Then perhaps they'd have more of a platform to rant at the Intelligent Design folks from.
He married a liberal woman in his old age. In his sad latter years, Goldwater endorsed Roe vs. Wade, the gay agenda, and helped defeat a conservative congressional candidate in Arizona by endorsing his left-wing Democrat opponent. So no doubt that Barry Goldwater would have supported federal courts dictating policy to local school officials. But the 1964 Goldwater might not have, no matter what his personal beliefs might have been regarding matters that might come before them.
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.