œI think anytime you run an organization where more people believe that Obama is a Muslim then believe in evolution, theres a problem. Stewart 

 

In the debate Stewart was directly referencing Fox News a network that  mainly reflects the Republican View (yes I understand Msnbc does the same thing for the dems, I don’t really like or watch any 24 hour TV news channels.), there are a few issues that I have with the republican party (I’m registered as an Independent) because of such ideas as teaching creationism in schools and a rather neglectful attitude towards science. I understand that this does not represent the entire party as Scott Brown denounced what was in the national party platform but it still bothers me to some degree. My question is how does the Republican Party move past this in order to become more appealing to voters such as myself?

 

While responding to this thread please keep it respectful, no wingnut/moonbat please, bwahahahas or wooosh’s I’m looking to have an honest and respectful discussion.

 

Well, I think the idea that christians, republicans, conservatives are anti science is simply an insulting and crazy idea.

Stewart uses the creationist dog wistle of the left, pitting religion and science against each other, as if they are competing forces.  they are not.  It is largely an apples an oranges thing, with some people strongly oppossed to the idea of an apple orange pie.

This post has been removed.

Sorry....but if you don't believe in evolution (like many conservatives), then you are most definately anti-science.

Sorry....but if you don't believe in evolution (like many conservatives), then you are most definately anti-science.

[/QUOTE]


who doesnt believe that all species evolve?

That one thing, believing apes are our ancestors or that the universe and life was created due to random acts is another.

Case in point from today's news:

 

ATHENS, Ga. (AP) — Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are ‘‘lies straight from the pit of hell’’ meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

The Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman’s banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell. Broun, a medical doctor, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats.

‘‘God’s word is true,’’ Broun said, according to a video posted on the church’s website. ‘‘I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/10/06/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-from-pit-hell/UcLMcrNmfKm5owTYRunTMN/story.html

The GOP has this nut on the Committee on Science and Technology

 

In response to UserName99's comment:

Sorry, but you are an example of the problem.  Lack of understanding what you are talking about.

Take the case where an athiest does not beleive in evolution.  Is that person anti-science?  On what basis?

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Any school system that is publicly funded that is attempting to teach creationism with federal money is flat out wrong. Also i was not using Christianity as being synonymy with being republican. But The creationism was just an example as well not the entire issue, the issue lies with climate change, Akins statements (as well as similar bills by ryan and others in the party),and many other issues that have to do with science that are either ignored or treated with contempt from the right.

 

Also when they freaked out because the dems didn’t include god in their platform. Its a backwards trajectory that is frankly rather unappealing to independents.

 

In response to jmel's comment:

Nothing to do with the thread topic please stay on stopic.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Argue with facts or points please stay away from personal attacks

 

In response to RSF4Life234's comment:

Avoid letting candidates like this run:

 

 

Broun says “all that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang theory” was part of a ploy to hide how old the Earth really is, “to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”Broun says “all that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang theory” was part of a ploy to hide how old the Earth really is, “to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

...

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/06/video_paul_broun_calls_evolution_big_bang_theory_lies_straight_from_the_pit_of_hell.html

In response to tvoter's comment:

Um, yeah, no. Pretty much exactly the same thing.

 

is boater being deliberately ret@rded for a reaction?

This post has been removed.

In response to jmel's comment:

If you read my entire post you would know that this thread is about how the republican party will reclaim independents.

"....a rather neglectful attitude towards science"

That is bullcrap, in my opinion.

Many progressives treat their deep seated feelings of inferiority by belittling religious believers; progressives claim religion is for ignorant yahoos who dont think and reason, and hold on to rigid beliefs of the Bible as infallible. 

Ironically, it is progressives who treat their concept of "science" as an infallible rigid belief.

They believe that current scientific dogma is infallible, and not subject to question or change based on new data or new ideas. 

They mock those who dare question "climate change",  or certain concepts of evolution.  

True science is always doubting, questioning...and changing. For example, 99.9% of medical science for a century believed ulcers were caused by spicy food...anyone who said otherwise was probably mocked as a religious zealot who didnt believe in science ...until one single scientist in the 1980s found out otherwise.

Modern progressives are often guilty of the same unthinking rigidity they attack Believers for.

If the issue is whether Republicans are too religious and anti-science to attract Independents...there is a similar issue as to why so many religious people would want to belong to a Party dominated by snotty anti-religious progressives who demean Believers as Bible-thumping ignoramuses.

I believe evolution is a miracle

This post has been removed.

ÂœI think anytime you run an organization where more people believe that Obama is a Muslim then believe in evolution, theres a problem. Stewart 

 

It's always nice to hear from the unquestioned intellectual leader of the Democrat party.

 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

He is certainly entitled to his postion...but two things come to mind.

1)he belongs on the science committee about as much as Michelle Bachman belongs on the defence committee.

2) This guy was a physician by trade..so I hope he was either really adept at ignoring his personal beliefs while plying his trade...or he's just paying lip service to a certain demographic.

 

It's funny..most Christians ( myself included) are able to have faith yet still understand that most bible stories are just bible stories - stories passed on over thousands of years before even being written down..and stories designed not to be literally factual..but rather just to teach a lesson. No Christian I know over the age of 12 believes the earth was created in 7 days.

Also..the comment I found most interesting by Stewart was when he said " if a corporation takes advantage of a tax loophole or government program..it's called smart business. But..if a poor person takes advantage of a program that allows them to put food on the table..then they are called moochers."

I thought this statement really summed up where we stand as a country.

In response to RSF4Life234's comment:

Here's the problem.  The left doesn't know what they are talking about, and some of the right doesn't know what they are talking about either.  To use the terms "evolution" and "creationism" are extremely broad terms.  No one knows exactly what they mean.The better question is what was the origin of man?

Do you think man is the result of random chemical reactions over time?

or

Do you beleive man was designed for a purpose?

The point being is that the root of evolution is that God did not create man, it is random.  It could have been man who made it to the top, or the ants could have made it to the top.  Man is the unintelligent product of randomness.

The creationist viewpoint is (or should be)  that God kick started the whole thing, and that man has obviously evolved by God's plan.  i.e. Man is the result of a Godly Plan.

So, when you grab some snippet from some politician and try to paint bible beleiving christians as agreeing, it falls flat.  don't kow the man, don't know the context of the comment, don't know why it is relevant at all.  What I do know is that when you paint with a broad enough brush , and pull in enough irrelevant quotes, you get goulash.

In response to miscricket's comment:

Well, only if you think the role of government is to feed people.  It is not.  The government is a blunt instrument incorrectly used in this regard.  It was not intended to feed the poor.  We as individuals, with our associations and institutiuons,  were intended to feed the poor.

Loopholes, which the left is focusing on mightily, are tax treatments that enable things like, employing more people, keeping industries like the automotive industry alive.  So, as much as I am against loopholes, I might argue that tax loopholes might do more to fight poverty and hunger than handoouts.

Part of the point is that the proliferation of information in this age does not necessarily lead to a more informed populace.

I'd be willing to bet that for every person concerned with the 'debate' between evolution and creationism...

...there are likely another 10 people who really don't care and aren't affected in their day-to-day lives in the least.

 

An essential point of evolution, it seems: we progress as a species without even knowing it.

(idiot ideologue congress-critters from GA aside, of course.)

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

I'm glad to break it to you...

But a democratic form of government is indeed fundamentally tasked with feeding the poor.

The relative efficiency in how this task is performed by government is a separate question entirely.

 

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Well, no, it is not.  Its primary mission is to protect and defend, and secondarily, not get in the way, i.e. allow people to pursue their happiness, i.e. promote the general welfare.  That is the reason ANY government is formed.  Any help to the poor is misplaced do-goodism.  The beauty of what the founders did was to make the government responsible for promoting (not providing) the general welfare, which at the time, meant the common good.  It meant keeping the playing field level, not allowing government to interfere with the pursuit of happiness of individuals.

The second point to consider is that the government does nothing to help the poor that is essential as part of government.  Government has no money, no food, no shelter.  All that comes via the people , i.e. taxes.   When government intercedes, impacts my pursuit of happiness by taking from me, and giving to someone else that impacts my pursuit of happiness.

The local government, if any place, needs to be where government gets involved in charitable endeavors.  However, it is much more beneficial for the government to promote charitable endeavors through our institutions, and not government itself.