Is it because they know they aren't evolving?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Republicans' belief in evolution plummets, poll reveals

You know someone's a Republican when they believe in social Darwinism but not regular Darwinism.

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

LOL @ the social Darwinism bit. It must be nice just to believe only what is
convenient. And I suppose the Republicans are an interesting case of
devolution. Reality is so scary and uncomfortable!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are looking at evolution not as a scientific thing, but a political one.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

What do you think is causing so many on the right to reject basic science in favor of partisanism?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The politicization of science in general. Both sides do it, after all - how many lefties have glommed onto the anti-GMO movement because of anti-corporate mindsets?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The politicization of science in general.

No. Its not a political issue.

When people deny evolution, what replaces it?

Its religion.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No. Its not a political issue.

Correction: it shouldn't be a political issue. It is one, though. It's become one due to the supposed "war on science," the situations surrounding the culture war in regards to "intelligent design" and so on.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

That's because "intelligent Design" is just a euphemism for Creationism and isn't science. Basically it's religious conservatives being insecure. Christians in Europe don't have a problem with evolution.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I used the term specifically because of the political implications that go along with it. There's also the issue of those who see no difference between "the same for thousands of years" and "god-directed evolution" that needs to be considered.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Okay. But politics itself doesn't motivate evolution denial. That's religion.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I disagree. The two (three?) are fairly intertwined on this particular issue.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's a nice attempt to paint an equivalence but it's not like rabid anti-GMO lefties form single-issue voting blocks the way that conservatives do.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not sure if serious.

Besides, in terms of outright danger to the population...

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Besides, in terms of outright danger to the population...

Go on.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If a politician doesn't believe in evolution, it has a negligible impact on society on a whole. It doesn't change the science being done.

But for GMO? It keeps safe, necessary food out of production, out of the supply chain, and makes it more difficult to seek out engineered alternatives, making more people hungry.

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

Ugh...the anti-GMO people who share my portion of the political spectrum really confound me.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Sure some lefties are anti-gmo, but that's not quite the same is it? GMO research is still fairly new. It's not a party platform however.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Exactly. How many Republican presidential candidates said they didn't believe in evolution. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/08/evolution_gop_candidates.html)

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

And if Democrats are "playing politics" with things like evolution and global warming, how dumb of Republicans to choose the losing side because its contrary.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's a total bullshit false equivalence.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Bingo. Evolution is a known quantity. GMO? We'll see.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Also, marketing promises aside, we aren't really seeing wonder crops or third world harvest booms. Much of the transgenic crop work has been towards characteristics that make them last longer on shelves or round up resistance, etc.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's not the same, but it's worse. The consequences are much more severe.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

You like to say that, but where's the evidence?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

First no they're simply not more severe.

Second, the ability to verify something like the age of the earth, evolution etc is now widely available. Ability to verify the harm or non harm of the GMO products is still a big debate, and a lot of people view the harm more for things like the copyrighting of food and such like that not the actual harm of the material itself, which is a matter of opinion and nothing like denying evolution in the slightest. In fact a lot of people who are against GMO crops actually are exactly 100% precisely right as far as the science part goes, whether or not they are right overall is a debate of opinion. So no, again, it's not the same thing. For a large quantity of people who are against GMOs its more akin to being for or against gun laws.

So find a different comparison for your false equivalence.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

No, this anti-evolution tendency is due to a very specific attempt to hijack the debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) by one entity at least. It's largely been successful, at least to those who tend to lean in that direction.