Replies

Well, that's part of my point. When used as POLITICAL tools, evolution, homosexualism, global warming, abortionism, stem cell research, etc, are not science. They are phony balonyism. I think we can all agree that politicians and political zealots are not scientists.

And I also think we can all agree that the left has long used the theory of evolution in its attempts to destroy religion. Just like the US Constitution, religion and moral society must be destroyed in order for the leftists to succeed in their long term goal of ushering in a socialist Utopia.

And more recently, IMHO, homosexualism, feminism, abortionism, global warmingism, stem cell researchism, etc, have all been added along side evolutionism to the Marxist left's tool box of isms.

I say they're "Marxist" because the modern day Marxists, ie, the socialists and liberals, the ACLU, the Democrat Party itself, and the left-leaning main stream media all use these issues not as tools of genuine and sincere science, but as POLITICAL WEAPONS against us.

And I see it as a shame and disgrace that they have so many willing accomplices on the right aiding and abetting their subversive intentions.

And I also think we can all agree that the left has long used the theory of evolution in its attempts to destroy religion. Just like the US Constitution, religion and moral society must be destroyed in order for the leftists to succeed in their long term goal of ushering in a socialist Utopia.
And more recently, IMHO, homosexualism, feminism, abortionism, global warmingism, stem cell researchism, etc, have all been added along side evolutionism to the Marxist left's tool box of isms.
I say they're "Marxist" because the modern day Marxists, ie, the socialists and liberals, the ACLU, the Democrat Party itself, and the left-leaning main stream media all use these issues not as tools of genuine and sincere science, but as POLITICAL WEAPONS against us.
And I see it as a shame and disgrace that they have so many willing accomplices on the right aiding and abetting their subversive intentions.

Of course the left will poison the well of every other subject they touch. What would you expect them to do?

But then a big chunk of the conservative movement (& Freepdom, & now apparently the management) sees this and concludes that it must be modern mainstream science itself that is inherently morally suspect. Therefore seemingly good conservatives here who defend mainstream science from the constant blizzard of lies from the passionate science-deniers must really be deep-cover crypto-communist agents & trolls who really should go back to DU where we obviously came from, yadda yadda yadda.

<shrug>

When used as POLITICAL tools,

I see where you are coming from now. True, those with an agenda can use any science as a political tool, warping the goal of science, which is simply the furthering of knowledge through rational observation.

I am sure some people have a fixation on the Theory of Evolution and want it in the classroom for various non-scientific reasons. Personally, I don't care if the Theory of Evolution were to be completely disproved tomorrow, replaced by another valid scientific theory. I just want the current state of science in the science class -- and English in English class, math in math class, religion in religion class, etc.

When used as POLITICAL tools, evolution, homosexualism, global warming, abortionism, stem cell research, etc, are not science.

JimRob, you can make the same kind of back and forth arguments about guns. Firearms are the cornerstone of our liberty. But some people misuse them for crime. Because of that, does it mean that guns should be banned?

Science is like any other human endeavor. It can be used for good or bad. Some people mis-use evolution to justify genocidal actions. Some people have used religion in the past for the same. Does it mean that both are bad? No, it simply means that you have to look at the heart of each person to gauge their intent. Like anything else in life.

Me, I fight bad climate science all the time in places other than FR (and no, I don't anti-freep - I go to a few liberal boards and torment the enemy in his den). I actually don't agree with the basic mechanisms of Darwinian evolution, but the basic concept is correct.

If someone wishes to believe in creation theory as their faith, I'm fine with that. But when they turn around and absolutely mangle science to fabricate a scientific foundation for their beliefs, then I will call such fabrications when I see them.

Because at the end of the day, such folks are the same as the global warming alarmists. They start with a conclusion and force the facts to fit their theories. Which is the opposite of the scientific method. So both such parties are a problem - and both tend to be vicious towards the heretics who dare to confront them with inconvenient facts.