Science and the President

[lil-petunia]

It is pretty obvious that both campaigns have trolls who check out freeperland, as well as this place. Perhaps a good discussion here will add fodder to the last debate.

So, my question(s) is(are) this(these):

Have we EVER had a less read, less rational president, one replacing logic with beliefs? Have we ever seen a leader who is so willing to replace science with religion? Have we ever experienced any administration so willing to pander to a small, ultra-religious group, to the exclusion of the majority of the population?

Let's compare today's shrub administration to other religious-based governments.

Pakistan, Iran. The FundaMentalists in those countries may have their own strict schools, but they do not stop research in any scientific theatre because of that. To the contrary, nukes require an understanding of physics and math which is contrary to the very concept of the Christian doctrine. If anything, all of the sciences are treated with respect, and robust involvement, despite religious beliefs. I suppose the Koran has something to do with that, with its pronouncements that the act of learning alone is good.

Christians do not believe in education. Not broadly, at least. If you take creationism and its recent hydra-like reappearances, it is easy to see that taking those theories to their logical conclusion, that man should not be permitted to study high energy physics, nuclear physics, mathematics, etc.

Hindu beliefs also cherish science, math, and the arts. India is the leader in many technical and scientific studies. Again, religion does NOT conflict with science. If anything, Hindu beliefs are very well suited to multi-dimensional calc. and TOEs. (TOE stands for theories of everything, NOT how our president is able to count to 20)

In Africa, I know of no religious belief which interferes with science, research, math astronomy, or related fields.

So, historically, the only country in the world (since Galileo was arrested by the Church authorities) to place religious beliefs over science is the US. Under this president.

Have we no shame?

[phaseolus]

1. Well, there was the Lysenkoism in the old Soviet Union

...that made science subordinate to Marxist-Leninist dogma. While they were still able to excel at Math and Physics, it set Soviet Biology and life sciences back about a hundred years.

Many have compared the Bush admin's policies to Lysenkoism. Definitely a scary precedent.

[shaolinmonkey]

2. It's not fair to generalize about Chritianity as a whole.

Caveat: I totally agree that creationists are nuts. It's not science. It has nothing to do with the scientific method. It's useless, stupid, flat-world thinking. Even more scary is the influence that kind of thinking has on this administration. It's frightening. That being said:

Many of the zany creationists take their ideas from the Old Testament which is also a major part of Judiasm. Both traditions can claim outstanding scientists and great thinkers in general. Most freepers will point out that all of our founding fathers were Christian, but they were also liberal thinkers. And I think that's the difference. Freepers and conservatives have closed their mind to learning and have contempt for those who continue to ask questions. By generalizing about Christianity, I think we do more harm than good. It galvanizes zealots against us and makes moderates think that Democrats have something against Christians.

It's certainly unfair to say that Christianity discourages learning. There's a verse in John somewhere, "seek the truth, for it shall set you free". What is frightening is unflinching faith in religious leaders who pervert Christianity for their own gain. We must appeal to people of faith through example, not through general distain.

My two cents. Flame away.

[lil-petunia]

3. heck, no. Flame? in response to a thoughtful post like that?

thanks for a really good post.

do you agree that a small segment of what used to call itself the Moral Majority has hijacked science under this administration's approach?

[shaolinmonkey]

5. Absolutely. They cherry-pick science the same way they

cherry-pick everything. The biggest problem with creationism is that it is simply not science. It is not verifiable, it is not subject to peer review, and it offers no predictors of future events and phenomena (until we see a seven-headed beast, the whore of babylon and a bunch of seals being broken).

I have a friend who objects to evolution being taught as unquestionable fact, which is fair, if that was the true motivation. I have no problem with evolution being presented as theory, as long as creationism is not. It is not legitimate science.

I would, however, welcome a mandatory comparative religion class. That is legitimate curriculum. Presented properly it could open a few minds. But that's not what creationists want. They just want everyone to think what they do. Which is why they will fail.

[lil-petunia]

6. not when swiss muslim profs are barred from the US

by ashcrap and co.

[AcesFull]

4. I disagree...

This supposes that this administration is placing true religious beliefs over science.

These are not religious beliefs, they are rationalizations masquerading as religious beliefs.

There is no way an alien (Jesus?) would claim this administration is following the teachings of the New Testament.