Are the most popular Republican candidates anti-science?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinio鈥?/a>



Rick Perry dismisses evolution as "just a theory" and claims Global Warming is a conspiracy theory.

This is dangerous...Are the most popular Republican candidates anti-science?
..... Yes, all of them. Good link.
I think you have to consider that the scientists who denounced the theory had their monetary grants removed; and Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank while he maximizes his carbon footprint in his new california mansion. Isn't it really pro-science to have evidence of a proven fact before making claims that have been disputed. It is dangerous to accept something at face value when their are personal agendas involved.Are the most popular Republican candidates anti-science?
So, if a popular theory stays unproven long enough, it ceases to be a theory and those who refute it are ignorant... Interesting approach, never mind that no definitive evolutionary link has been found that charts the "evolution" of our species, we want to believe it, so despite a lack of proof, it must be true...



There have been innumerable things that science believed true at one point, only to find it wasn't... I'm not plugging for either team, but I'm not willing to agree with something on the basis of a lack of evidence, with creationism, you're at least told upfront that belief requires faith, so in that regard it's at least more honest and up front - You have your THEORY and I have mine...Are the most popular Republican candidates anti-science?
I don't understand why there's such a double standard in personal beliefs. For example, if a lib is pro-life, nothing is said, but if a Repub is, for some reason it's a threat. A lib who wants welfare reform is just peachy, but a Repub who wants the same thing "wants to destroy Social Security!"

Personal opinions do not make the policies and if it doesn't matter with one party, it shouldn't matter for any parties involved. Science today is not treated as an evolving base of proven knowledge, which it is, instead it's akin to a religion in itself where the believers are every bit as fanatical as the faith-based beliefs they "hate." We should be "terrified?" Please, someone needs their meds because they just know we're all out to get them.

So what if people have religious beliefs? Every major religion in the world has a theory of creation. So... that affects science... how? It doesn't.

What's scary is the idea that no one is allowed to have a personal opinion without being given a negative label.

Edit: How many pro-life Repub presidents have overturned Roe vs. Wade? None. How many, who believe in creation, have banned the teaching of the theory of evolution? As a matter of fact, the teaching of creation is fairly ignored in the public school system today, that just didn't start with Obama or Clinton. So, it is a clear double standard. No one is changing anything. Palin's father was a science teacher who taught evolution, as required, Alaska didn't change their teachings when she governed. It has absolutely no influence or any relevance really to what they do on record and in office. That's just silly propaganda.
You speak of Science as the Scientists who disavowed Galileo were scientists. Government puppet hacks.

Scientific method doesn't support much of what the so called Scientific community are forced to push on us as Science. You're a sheep
Scary Perry also failed economics in college! lol!
They are ignorant morons.
That's right...If it ain't in black and white and Red all over. They just don't get it.
So you have faith in "science" only because Jews repeat themselves over and over in "scientific journals"?



What a fool you are.