Thanks =)

I’ll email my mom this web page and she can print it out and put it on her fridge!

However I do think that social cons (like me) who aren’t anti-science need to do a much better job of speaking up and distancing ourselves from the satan-science social cons. Maybe there are fewer social cons like me than I think but I hope not.

“Yeah, well, eight years of massive expansion of government power and debt under the Republicans tends to numb you to that sort of thing.”

I’m with you on this one - Bush did a horrible job in this regard. But you still didn’t explain how it’s ok for liberals to use the threat of impending natural disasters to expand government. Just saying ‘Republicans did it first but not as well’ isn’t really an argument.

“But on that note, what is the liberal agenda? As far as I can tell, it is to make sure that the activities of human beings don’t impact the earths climate in a way that would be detrimental towards humans both now and in the future. Obviously you perceive this to be a bad thing, but I’m at a loss to understand how.”

I guess you missed my statement that it’s curious how every solution to the impending climate disaster is perfectly in line with liberal ideology or is a complete scam perpetrated by a liberal? Carbon credits? Cap and Trade? Massive taxation?

I never said the choice was between social cons who hate science and liberals who twist it - I was pointing out the disparity in how the media portrays these things and apparently how you perceive it.

As to your evidence that not only are most social cons anti-science but that to be anti-science is the definition of anti-science - let me apply your exact logic to other scenarios (none of which I believe but this is just to illustrate how ridiculous your claim is):

* Most gay people wear leather thongs and a gag-ball. I’ve seen the pictures of some big parade in San Franciso.

* Most Muslims are all for stoning homosexuals - I’ve seen video and heard reports of it!

* Most atheists have a desire to create a totalitarian regime under which they will ban religion and anything else they consider to be unreasonable - like free markets and capitalism

If any idiot from whatever ‘group’ who happens to get media attention by doing something idiotic can be used as iconic and representative of that group then there is no end to the disgusting stereotypes that can be rationalized as accurate.

Uh, because the entire thing is complete BS.

Please explain. Blanket logical fallacy doesn’t count.

I love how Chuck I’m a Real Conservative See My ID Card from Tucson is just A-OK with a massive expansion of govt. power.

Yeah, well, eight years of massive expansion of government power and debt under the Republicans tends to numb you to that sort of thing.

Uh, because the entire thing is complete BS. I love how Chuck I’m a Real Conservative See My ID Card from Tucson is just A-OK with a massive expansion of govt. power.

I see you have so much evidence to prove that social cons are science haters that you decided to attack my intelligence rather than provide the evidence.

What kind of evidence would you like? Can I just say Intelligent Design, and be done with it, or are you looking for specifics? Specifics like Bill Nye getting attacked in Texas for telling people that God didn’t create a second light in the sky, it’s just the moon, and the moon reflects sunlight. Seriously, what kind of evidence would convince you that Social Conservatives hate science? None, I’m guessing.

Some socials cons are young-earthers who don’t want the satan science taught to their children - ok, I agree they are out there and some of them are vocal. So what? Are most social cons this way? Who knows.

Some are more extreme than others, but Yes, most social conservatives are this way. It’s pretty much the definition of Social Conservative. When a religious ideology is allowed to trump science, everyone loses. It’s just that some people simply don’t understand (or care) that they’ve lost.

But when liberals warp science (e.g., global warming) to push their agenda (strange how all the ’solutions’ to global warming fit well into the liberal ideology of how we can also solve every social ill) they don’t get labelled as anti-science. At least the satan-science-conservative is in clear opposition to certain disciplines of science - the liberals try to subvert and pervert it to meet their ends. You tell me which is more damaging to science in the long run?

So, you’re giving me a choice between people who use scientific data to push their agenda, and people who oppose certain disciplines of science? I don’t much like my choices, so I’ll pick neither. Clearly though, opposition to science - you pick the discipline - is pathetic and counter productive.

But on that note, what is the liberal agenda? As far as I can tell, it is to make sure that the activities of human beings don’t impact the earths climate in a way that would be detrimental towards humans both now and in the future. Obviously you perceive this to be a bad thing, but I’m at a loss to understand how.

I see you have so much evidence to prove that social cons are science haters that you decided to attack my intelligence rather than provide the evidence.

Some socials cons are young-earthers who don’t want the satan science taught to their children - ok, I agree they are out there and some of them are vocal. So what? Are most social cons this way? Who knows.

But when liberals warp science (e.g., global warming) to push their agenda (strange how all the ’solutions’ to global warming fit well into the liberal ideology of how we can also solve every social ill) they don’t get labelled as anti-science. At least the satan-science-conservative is in clear opposition to certain disciplines of science - the liberals try to subvert and pervert it to meet their ends. You tell me which is more damaging to science in the long run?

Wow. Snark aside, you completely misread that post.

I never suggested Creationists are oposed to medicine, anymore than I suggested they believe that an atom can’t be split. Both of those ideas are examples of belief conflicting with the realities of the material world. The splitting atom example is a hypothetical (I don’t know of any religion that holds, as a tennant of faith, that atoms can’t be split). The prohibition against medicine is a real component of some Christian sects . . . as are the criminal prosecutions that have resulted when prayer didn’t save children’s lives (fun fact: Medicare reimburses the prayer healers for their services).
Also . . . both of those examples I SUPPORTED a person’s right to believe in them:

“***Feel free*** to believe that only prayer can heal your child . . . but don’t get upset when the authorities come and arrest you for negligent homicide.”

Do you disagree with that? Do you feel that a person’s honest belief that God prohibits the use of medicine is wrong? If they are premitted to believe that, should society take no action if a parent lets their child die when there were means available to save them?
Faith shouldn’t direct the material, that was and is my point. I don’t care if a person (NOT Creationists) believe, as a matter of faith, that the morning after pill is murder. I do mind when that person, as a pharmacist, now imposes their belief on others by morally deciding what medicine people should have access to.

Creationists can believe whatever they like. When people start rejecting factual data as a result of their faith, then it becomes a problem because it affects me. Believe the universe popped into fully formed existence in less than a week? Goodie. Maybe we should start basing our governmental policies on that? Certainly makes the energy issue easier to deal with . . . don’t have to worry about running out of oil, since it can appear in one day should the Creator wish it (and the Deity certainly isn’t going to let the Faithful suffer, being a Merciful Power). No worries, right?