Only a small minority of conservatives now say they place a “great deal” of trust in science, according to a survey published yesterday.
The new result represents a drop of almost 30 percent since the 1970s, according to the study published in the American Sociological Review.
The study says data indicate that the public’s trust in science is largely unchanged since 1974 except among people identifying themselves as conservatives.
Whereas in 1974, 48 percent of conservatives trusted science — about the same share as liberals — the number is now down to 35 percent, a decline of nearly a third in 38 years.
“Conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates, and ended the period with the lowest,” Gordon Gauchat, the study’s author, wrote in an abstract. In discussing the survey’s results, he adds: “These results are quite profound, because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives.”
Read: Tough times for Australian billionaires.
In an interview with US News, Gauchat traced the decline to the 1964 presidential election.
"It kind of began with the loss of Barry Goldwater and the construction of Fox News and all these [conservative] think tanks. The perception among conservatives is that they're at a disadvantage, a minority," Gauchat was quoted as saying. "It's not surprising that the conservative subculture would challenge what's viewed as the dominant knowledge production groups in society—science and the media."
In a poll released today, Gallup found that self-identified Republicans were the most likely to believe that news of global warming was “exaggerated.”
Read: A global battle over gay rights.
Nearly 70 percent of Republicans held this view while only 20 percent of Democrats and 42 perecent of independents felt this way.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
50 TRUCKS A DAY CROSSING FROM SYRIA TO HIZBOALLAH ECEVRY DAY SINCE MARCH 1 , ALL THE WEAPONS . CASH COME FROM IRAN AND SHIIA IRAQI GOVERNEMENT, AND THE HEAVY WEAPONS FROM RUSSIA SALE TO SYRIA , SYRIAN SENDING THE WEAPONS TO HIZBOALLAH AS A BACK UP PLAN TO BASHAR AL ASAD RUN, WHERE IS USA , UN AND NATO FROM THIS, THOSE WAR CRIMINALS KILLED MORE THAN 14,000 CIVILIANS TO DATE, WHY IS THE SILENT ....SYRIANS ARE STILL KILLING CIVILIANS DAILY, WHY THEY SEND WEAPONS TO HIZBOALLAH ALONG WITH CHEMICAL WEPAONS WE SEE IT ON THE GROUND EYES WITNESS SEE THAT THE TRUCKS GO AL BEQAA VALY AND SOUTH LEBANON , AND ANY BODY STOP THOSE TRUCKS WILL BE SHOT DEAD....SOME OF THE WEAPONS INCLUDE KATIOSHA ROCKETS, K47, HEAVY GUNS. ANTIAIRCRAFT WEAPONS, ANTI TANKS, MINES, LAND MINES , POISON GAS, AND SMALL UNMAN AIRCRAFTS. SCUDS ETC.....SYRIA MUST BE STOPED AND HIZBOALLAH MUST BE DEALT WITH , IRAN PREPARING THEM JUST INCASE THEY GET ATTACKED.
ur a troll send some pictures
The problem is the war on drugs. In the beginning of the US the idea of better living through pharmacology was promoted. At this optimistic time diseases were cured and medication were found for the mentally ill. This happened because people were looking for the advantages that drugs provide. The war on drug was started by Nixon. Now all new drugs are classified. If the drug does not have curative value before it is classified it classified as level one. With a level one classification if cannot be studied. The curative potential of a drug cannot be found without study. So, logically at least drug science will be stagnated.
Politicians control science, science is controlled by politics. US jail is privatized and politicians invest in prisons.
If you were born after 1960, you think drug is a bad word because of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Anti-Drug_Media_Campaign
Someone stole all America's money. There isn't enough cash for a another war. Have a nice day.
Yeah, But we can always just print some more.
troll much?
Sounds like YOU have a problem.
Please..you are either a troll or a supporter of American Imperialism. Syria as much as I hate all the people dying is not our responsibility.
whether it is 9 or 14 thousand Syrians dead that is not american imperialism talk those are russian bullets and weapons talking. It is Russian imperialism and Persian Fundamentalism that is killing Syrians not American. You sound ignorent and like a broken record. Not everything is Israeli, Jewish or American conspiracy.
Conservatives dwell on the past or stick to status quo. Technology and sciences bring progress, which in its return changes our way of life and perceptions.
Talk about a closed mind! I have worked for Texas Instruments and NASA in Engineering. I am currently a computer programmer, and I am a Conservative. This article is a bunch of typecasting BS by CNN to drum up excitement in the kool-aid drinking liberals to make them feel "Special" Fareed & CNN, you really outdid yourself on this one....
No, you're just one of the 35%.
I saw was the Glaciers. It was a vast frozen large area of ice covering a considerable field. About 20 years later, my husband and I returned and the effects of Global Warming were undeniable. What had been a phenomenal natural Ice mountain covered field had become about the size of a hunk of snow as made by a plow in a parking lot.
The effects of Global Warming are apparent to anyone familiar with nature.
This week, I watched as Roy Blunt defended the 400 Billion dollar kick-back to Oil Barron's on the floor of the Senate. I have no idea how anyone could ever vote Republican. They are traitors to America. The Republican party is out of touch with America and very irrelevant in today's world.
But do you believe in man-made global climate change? How about evolution? Or did a man in the sky make everything in seven days, including dinosaurs for man to ride upon?
I'm awake. One hour of sleep and bored with all of you, life and CNN. Screw it. AYCAGFY!
Reporting facts and figures has become the Conservatives' worst enemy. They distrust science because the facts and figures support liberal positions. It's not the media that is Left bias, it's the truth and facts that are Left bias.
habibi, your subscription to Jihadist Monthly keeps you going does it not?
You are like the energizer bunny, spewing poison and trying to sow dissent among Americans.
Poor liitle thing, you simply are not very good at it.
You... DO realize that this is a political piece written to get us all yelling at each other, again...
...don't you?
The only example given for its claim is that conservatives are "most likely to believe that >>news<< of global warming was 'exaggerated.'" (Nearly all news is exaggerated, Hettlingen. Yes... even CNN. Ad revenue depends upon the station being interesting; not upon accuracy.)
From this same article, couldn't we just as easily draw the conclusion that Liberals are simply more likely to believe anything reported through the press, no matter how sensationalist?
The study, and the poll data are two different studies. This piece was written pretty badly, and I wish the writer would have done a better job of pointing out that they are not the same.
Cheers
Makes you wonder why they want us distracted and fighting each other.
Toria- Global warming...WGAF? Nuclear War will cool everything off real quick. Dems and Pubs are equally foolish.
This is good news. Hopefully they will have less children and die sooner. We win!
I'm not sure any one knows the difference between liberal and conservative anymore. Maybe it just depends on where you get your news and whose opinions do you blindly subscribe to.
It is funny that people keep talking about liberal and conservative. For thousands of years, the general populace has known a politician will say anything to be elected. Once a politician is elected, he or she will use the position to achieve their goals. If they are lying to you, what does it mater what they say there allegiance is?
This situation is like bunch of squirrels sitting around saying "We want to make the fox our leader!" Then, another group of squirrels reply "No! The wolf says nicer things. Let’s make him our leader!" What does it matter? The squirrels are just going to be eaten.
then why don't you just kill yourself, or if others will decide for you and you have no saying ( vote) go live in Cuba
wow, whatever, off your meds or what?
I'm a Morriservative. I believe in what I need to; so, I'll keep my poll numbers right where I want them.
Science is politicized, the results found are usually in favor of those financing the research. Take the studies that found marijuana killed brain cells. The scientists couldn't find any evidence to support that hypothesis so they forced monkeys to inhale 30 joints in 5 minutes. The lack of oxygen caused brain damage and they were able to conclude what they were paid to conclude. Even when the financing of a study is made open, how do we know what bias those scientists are bringing into their research? If a hammer is looking for a nail, it's going to find nails everywhere. These guys aren't on a quest for truth, they're on a quest for financing, getting published and landing cushy university gigs. Science is a business like any other.
You must not know many scientists, then. Impartiality and peer-review is inherent to all the STEM fields. Anyone who operates opposite to that eventually gets found out and shunned out of the community. There will always be a few bad eggs. The difference is that the conservatives love to pick up that smelly egg and try to claim to anyone who will listen that all the eggs are the same.
Oh, and how about the same mistrust for preachers/ministers of tax-exempt megachurches? Didn't think so.
I think your problem is that you do not have the intellectual capacity to distinguish valid, peer reviewed scientific studies from hack jobs.
The term "educated Conservative" is an oxymoron.
A given Conservbative may have undergone an educational process, but it did NOT properly register in his psyche - else he could NOT be a true Conservative. . THAT claim is akin to one that states the sun rises in the East ! ! !
A true Conservative is dedicated to the denial of the obvious ! ! !
You seem to know everything.
Allenwoll, what is a "Conservbative"?
you're a moron............
I have worked for Texas Instruments and NASA in Engineering. I am currently a computer programmer, and I am a Conservative. This article is a bunch of typecasting BS by CNN to drum up excitement in the kool-aid drinking liberals to make them feel "Special" Fareed & CNN, you really outdid yourself on this one....
People who state a religion, occupation, nationality in these discussions are usually lying.
People who believe the world is 6000 years old (like you inbred conservative Southern teabaggers) ARE NOT educated.
okay genius, how old is the world?
Always expect name calling from the left, who tell us how much smarter and more understanding they are.
The reality: science is never settled. Take the most researched field in all of science: medicine. For the first time, evidence is building that our emotions and our life's history largely detemine whether or not we will eventually suffer from most diseases. But when was the last time you doctor asked you about any trauma you may have suffered growing up, or when did your doctor ask that a psychologist sit in on an annual physical, to try to identify behavior that might contribute to future disease. In so many areas of science, we live in the dark ages. To say that conservatives don't place full trust in science may mean they are exercising appropriate skepticism and open-mindedness. How was the question asked in the poll, anyway?
It's not the science, but the scientists that are not trusted. It seems nowadays everybody has a political agenda.
Political agenda is defined as:
a set of policies or issues to be addressed or pursued by an individual or group; also, a set of underlying motives for political policy.
Therefore, underlying motives for a political policy have to be stated.
Why is your political agenda?
Stated? To who? I may not know a person's political agenda unless they make it public.
but Randal, you are the one who said everyone has a political agenda.
What do you think their agenda is?
What is yours?
I never said everyone has one, I said it SEEMS like everyone has one. Because of this, a person needs to be careful on what they accept as the truth. My agenda is only to have people THINK.
hehehehe...
Yet your network and the media made fun of Newt for attempting to promote a bold plan for space development and science inspiration.
Excellent point!
No, what made Newt look like an idiot is to suggest spending a huge sum of money doing it while our country is going broke.
As you should know habibi, you have to spend money to make money.
It is strange that at a time when science, good published science, is available at the touch of a key for those who wish to read it, that so little fact is embraced in many of the criticisms of medicine, environment, genetics, energy etc. The information is all out there. How to treat a disease? Cochrane Reports. Basic Journals? Science, Nature, NEJM, all out there and available if you stop by the local library if not free on line.
A year ago I was in a huge, general bookstore in Beijing and the banner advertising, hanging from the ceiling, was not for James Patterson or Hunger Games but it urged the customers to purchase the British Science Journal, "Nature".
If your a conservative and you don't believe in modern science, then how exactly does your computer work? If its not science, it would have to be witchcraft, in which case a conservative using a computer would be a heretic/witch which seems like a bit of a problem. You can't not believe in science and use a computer, drive a car, watch TV, board an airplane, because all of those things are powered by modern science. Unless you think your using witchcraft or something, that makes no sense.
FYI, I have worked for Texas Instruments and NASA in Engineering. I am currently a computer programmer, and I am a Conservative. This article is a bunch of typecasting BS by CNN to drum up excitement in the kool-aid drinking liberals to make them feel "Special" Fareed & CNN, you really outdid yourself on this one....
Joe, your oversimplification and misinpretretation is staggering. No one ever said that science doesn't exist. Simply that many conservatives have less absolute faith in science. This should be the case for all, regardless of politics. Why? Because scientific theories and methods can be wrong. We have a greater appreciation for the error rate in scientifc research and analysis. Its not about witchcraft or religion, though one can make the same criticism of science that one can make of religion, that if science (or religion) is so perfect and truthful than how is it that some well known scientists (or religious authorities) disagree with each other?
But go ahead, keep pretending that having the maturity and critical thinking skill to actually consider those questions somehow makes one belive in dark ages witchcraft. Keep it up bud. False dichotomies are fun and useful!
This may be the biggest bunch of BS you have ever written.........
This should surprise no one. The GOP has dumbed itself down to the point that someone like Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, or Sarah Palin, who twenty years ago would not be qualified to shovel elephant dung at the circus, can become credible candidates to lead the free world.
Understanding and accepting scientific data, concepts, and explanations requires a moderate amount of critical thinking.
Some folks would simply prefer to accept the dogmatic preachings of a pastor and the anecdotal passages of the Bible to help them understand the world and cope with the stresses of day-to-day life.
Definitely a valid point, labman57. But let's not forget that there are often two or more sides involved. There are obvious merits to both science and religion, and when used properly both can be extremely beneficial in a humane way. But of course there is always the other side which is questionable to say the least. One of the more recent trends I've been noticing (just personally) that many solutions are not leading to a net reduction of problems. Sort of like those medications that might cure one minor problem but then possibly result in a host of others. In economical terms, "opportunity costs" make no sense if the net result is an increase of problems. Simply put, the world needs to work harder on finding and implementing solutions that result in a NET DECREASE OF PROBLEMS. And as only one controversial example, I'll cite the production of natural gas by the fracting process. Sure, heating our homes is ok, but not by lighting up the water from our taps.
With regard to conservatives placing little trust in science, is this really shocking? When the day comes that a religious conservative needs science to save their life with a major surgery, they'll be running off to a hospital, not sitting in church praying (despite the Bible stating that whatever you pray for will happen). Just more hypocrisy.
Studies have been done which show atheists have the highest IQ's, followed by agnostics, followed by casual believers and with devout believers coming in dead last. So God created his followers as the least intelligent segment of society. What a shocker.
However, these results were found not only on an INDIVIDUAL basis, but also on a per country basis. If pull my own stats using one study with IQ and one study with religion:
The first study is a Pew/Gallup Poll done in 2009 where they asked people in 140+ countries whether or not religion was important in their daily lives. Then you can check out some national IQ estimates (such as IQ and the Wealth of Nations which I'll use here) and make your own comparisons.
As a quick sampling, there were a total of 15 countries that had triple digit IQ's and 19 countries with IQ's under 80. Now I will compare those countries with ones that are also on the Pew/Gallup Poll.
Group #1: Has an IQ of 102.5 and 39.6% thought religion was important.
Group #2: Has an IQ of 71.1 and 92.3% thought religion was important.
Now, putting those items into perspective here, an IQ of 70 is the actual cutoff mark for LITERAL MENTAL RETARDATION!!!! So the group that is on the cuff of mental retardation LOVES religion where virtually everyone deems it important.
In contrast, the other group boasts a SUBSTANTIALLY higher IQ and less than 40% of the people think religion is important.
What a shocker again.
Religion is for weak minded individuals who don't have the intelligence levels to think for themselves.
Peace!
Reagan would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what the Republican Party was like today.
The vision of the GOP back then is FAR different than where it is today. The biggest difference is that when Reagan was President, the GOP base was made up of devoted Patriotic Americans wanting to defeat the Soviets. Today, the GOP base is made up of religious fanatics wanting to defeat abortion and the Qur'an. It is beyond frightening.
Can you post a link to this poll?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg
Dixon was correct in his posting
Thank you, Zapatta. I wonder what came first "The chicken or the egg?"
That may be true but studies by Rogers Hummer and Larson George in 1999 have also shown that people with religion have a greater satisfaction with life, longer life expectancy, and a lower risk of suicide than people with no religion, so while you "brilliant" atheists are living out your miserable lives waiting for the day when you will finally muster up the courage to blow your brains out, the "ignorant" religious folk of the world will be living happier lives because we can actually find meaning in our lives and reasons to live.
@Matthew: "That may be true"
It is true.
*** "but studies by Rogers Hummer and Larson George in 1999 have also shown that people with religion have a greater satisfaction with life"
I had a greater satisfaction with life when I used to think that Santa was real. Living in delusion can make someone happier, but isn't necessarily good for the individual. As mentioned elsewhere on here, delusion is a mental illness as defined by the DSM IV.
**** "longer life expectancy"
Longer life does not equal happiness. QUALITY of life is much more important than length of life. Do you know why we live longer today...oh yeah it's thanks to science. Sitting around praying didn't increase life expectancy over the past century.
**** "and a lower risk of suicide than people with no religion"
Yeah, those Muslim suicide bombers fall right in line with that concept. But let's suppose you are correct for a minute, isn't it ironic that the religious don't want to die... after all Heaven is supposedly SO much better than Earth. Hell, even the Pope hides behind bulletproof glass and wears kevlar under his vestments. He's not showing much faith in God to stop that bullet and he doesn't appear to be too anxious to go to Heaven, but would rather live longer here on Earth.
**** "so while you "brilliant" atheists"
You use "brilliant" as a pejorative. Brilliant!
**** "are living out your miserable lives"
Yes, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett's lives suck indeed. Sorry to burst your bubble, but our lives are not miserable and for some of us, our lives have IMPROVED once organized religion has left our lives.
*** "waiting for the day when you will finally muster up the courage to blow your brains out"
VERY Christian of you brother!
**** "the "ignorant" religious folk of the world will be living happier lives because we can actually find meaning in our lives and reasons to live."
LOL... you are basing your argument on a total of roughly 1 million people committing suicide per year in the entire world. Considering the world's population is 7 BILLION, you are talking about 0.01% of the population. And of those committing suicide, almost certainly the majority of those are religious.
Let me ask you: How many homeless people do you have living in your home? What?!? None!?!?! After all, Jesus said whatsoever you do to the least of his people, that you do unto him. So why leave your Savior cold, homeless and hungry?
Jesus also COMMANDS you to sell EVERYTHING you own. Have you done that? What?!?! You haven't?!?
Spare us all your ridiculous hypocrisy.
FACT: The demographic of society that believes in God the most belongs to grade school children. -- You know, the same ones that believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Boogeyman and the Tooth Fairy. What a shocker.
FACT: The Bible Belt boasts the highest rate of teen pregnancy BY FAR in the country while the ultra liberal NorthEast has the lowest. - This is what happens when religious nuts enforce teaching "abstinence" instead of "birth control." And despite it not CLEARLY not working, they keep doing it anyway because they are delusional.
FACT: Women with religious affiliations make up more than 3/4 of all abortions in the United States. - Thus, the demographic that aborts the most babies actually belongs to religious people.
FACT: Atheists/Agnostics have lower rates of divorce than Christians, Jews and even the Mormons. - Those religions are sure strengthening the bonds of "holy" matrimony indeed.
So without religion, the world would be more intelligent, less delusional, have lower rates of teen pregnancy, have fewer abortions, have lower rates of divorce and we'd have fewer wars. Thank goodness for religion!!!
As the saying goes: "Religion: Giving hope to those living in a world torn apart by religion."
Peace!
I'm conservative and believe in science, and i not a christian........
So, how does that work?
billbennett ronreagan bushone bush2. It really comes down to money and that means it will NEVER change. Money talks
Prisoners do not walk.
What info are you basing your statement on?
Explain yourself.
The biggest problem scientists have when connecting to the "general public" is that they can NEVER say they have proved anything. Scientists cannot prove gravity, it's only highly likely, based on a preponderence of evidence, that it indeed exists. This is not what the general public wants to hear. They need black and white, yes or no concepts delivered to them in under 30 seconds with language that does not exceed the comprehension of a 6th grader. Hence the exisence of CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc etc
sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
Now, based on the above noted definition, could you please clarify your statement.
Gotta be honest, I chuckled to your post here.
Yours provided us with a hearty laugh!
I'm sorry, but that's just flat-out embarrassing for the label "conservative". There's no getting around that fact.
Too many conservatives spend too much time thinking that FoxNews is actually giving them a "fair and balanced" message. The actual FoxNews NEWS programming (Chris Wallace) can actually provide reasonably decent news, but it still gives a slanted perspective by what it chooses to air and what it doesn't within its time constraint. And don’t try the completely lame response of “ya, what about MSNBC”. I, like most moderate liberals, don’t watch MSNBC. Moderate liberals want the real information and not “spin” like MSNBC and FoxNews spew.
The other non-News FoxNews programming is flat-out corporate propaganda. I know responsible conservatives who get their news from a wide variety of news sources, of which Fox happens to be one, and they can talk with a balanced perspective about current events. Those who only watch Fox end up claiming some of the most ridiculous things that completely contradict reality.
Conservatives used to see it as a personal responsibility to educate yourself, and moderate conservatives still do. Neocons like Santorum, with claims that having a goal of getting an education is ridiculous, have completely dragged the label "conservative" through the mud. Neocons have even taken to viciously insulting moderate responsible conservatives by labeling them things like "RINOs" - self-righteously acting like neocons even have the right to decide who is "conservative" and who isn't.
The fact is that people are switching to Independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties. However as the statistics show, Republicans are changing to Independent at a significantly faster rate than Democrats. I’m meeting more and more moderate conservatives at Obama Campaign events because they recognize Obama’s actions as being very centrist. These are the conservatives who educate themselves from more news services than just FoxNews, and they recognize that Fox’s propaganda programming is highly disconnected from reality (as can MSNBC’s at times). They’re also being driven away from the Republican Party by the neocon extremists.
You say "Too many conservatives spend too much time thinking that FoxNews is actually giving them a "fair and balanced" message".
How do you know this?
"Gallup found that self-identified Republicans were the most likely to believe that news of global warming was 'exaggerated.'"
Believing the news exaggerates is completely rational. The news thrives of sensationalism. News isn't science. If you want true science, make sure it is peer reviewed. That being said, I think that a significant percentage of Republicans believe that the scientific community is exaggerating, which was the author's point. I'm just saying the news and the scientific community are not equivalent.
Yup, stop believing in facts and believe some schmuck who is spouting islamic jihadist crap.
The global science *has* been peer reviewed, repeatedly.
Should be "global warming science" has been peer reviewed repeatedly.
Many of the Republicans today are completely delusional. This month in a poll of Republicans in Alabama and Mississippi:
52% of Republicans in Mississippi believe Obama worships Allah (which in and of itself is funny since Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all Abrahamic faiths and therefore, for all intents and purposes, believe in the exact same God).
45% of Republicans in Alabama believe Obama worships Allah.
66% of Republicans in Mississippi believe evolution is fiction.
60% of Republicans in Alabama believe evolution is fiction.
51% of Republicans in Mississippi had a favorable opinion of Rush Limbaugh.
53% of Republicans in Alabama had a favorable opinion of Rush Limbaugh.
This month in Tennessee, Ohio and Georgia:
Only 33% of Republicans in Tennessee believe Obama is a US Citizen.
Only 40% of Republicans in Georgia believe Obama is a US Citizen.
Only 42% of Republicans in Ohio believe Obama is a US Citizen.
So what's happening here? These people are brainwashed dolts who are running around believing items that are completely delusional. Delusion is an actual mental illness as defined by the DSM IV.
These people believe Obama is a non-US Citizen, a Muslim and that evolution is not real. And people wonder what's wrong with our society.
quote your sources
@Patrick: Are you joking? Do you not know how to perform a BASIC internet search? Those pages should be ridiculously easy for you to find!!!
Try this:
1) Go to Google and type in the following: 52% Mississippi Obama Allah
2) Hit the "Search" button.
I'll see if you can figure out the Tennessee, Georgia and Ohio one all by yourself like a big boy.
hehehe...
Penn;
Then find it yourself, support your own claims, and stop asking your opponent to do your homework for you.
Most won't do your homework. Most will just call you a liar with no sources.
@EaglesQuestions: "Penn; Then find it yourself, support your own claims"
I already did find it myself nimrod. See, this is how it worked: I found the stats and then I posted them.
**** "and stop asking your opponent to do your homework for you."
They aren't doing MY homework you simpleton. I've ALREADY done my homework. Duh. You "is" smart indeed.
**** "Most won't do your homework. Most will just call you a liar with no sources."
Well then that's THEIR loss, not mine. If they are too ignorant to not know how to complete a basic Google search, then oh well. If they question me and are too lazy to look it up for themselves, then oh well. It doesn't affect me either way. It is their loss for not educating themselves.
But while we're on the topic, here's some "special homework" just for you: Go look in the mirror and say the following out loud over and over again until it finally sinks in:
I AM WE TODD DID. I AM SOFA KING WE TODD DID.
I don't wonder, I know. People who think like you.. That is what is wrong with this world. Liberal/ democrats who believe that everyone should think and feel just like he/she does or they are dumb. Liberals are the most hate filled people I have ever encountered. Try disagreeing with their views and watch their temperatures rise. They cannot contain their anger.
HWard: "I don't wonder, I know."
Yes, if you were to "wonder" that would require multi-dimensional, out of the box type of thinking. Obviously, those qualities don't apply to you.
**** "People who think like you.. That is what is wrong with this world."
LMAO!!!! People who think like me? Ummm.... you mean people who provide FACTUAL REALITY? Classic! You live in a world of delusion, so of course you don't like to hear reality.
**** "Liberal/ democrats"
I'm actually a registered Republican nitwit.
***** "who believe that everyone should think and feel just like he/she does or they are dumb."
Because people like Rush Limbaugh would never make anyone else feel dumb who doesn't agree with him. LOL Wait let me guess... you think Sarah Palin is actually intelligent.
**** "Liberals are the most hate filled people I have ever encountered."
That's what happens when you lead a sheltered life. I've been to 49 states, every province in Canada and to 6 continents... I can assure you there are far more "hate filed people" than liberals. Let me guess again.... you're a Christian. Too bad for you Jesus was an über liberal.
As for your notion about the term "liberal" as a pejorative: Liberal policies have always been failures indeed. Hmmm... ending slavery was a pretty liberal idea. So was allowing women the right to vote. So was allowing blacks and whites to drink from the same water fountain. That list goes on and on and on and on and on. You are just too uneducated and daft to realize the obvious. You represent a classic case of xenophobia.
*** "Try disagreeing with their views and watch their temperatures rise. They cannot contain their anger."
Oh, you mean like your post to me?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Thanks for making this so ridiculously easy.
MOre junk facts. Look at those numbers. Ohio, Miss, Alabam, over and over again. So someone took a poll in some of the most rural areas they could find and tried to pass if off as representative of the entire political party. Retarded. I could go do a poll in Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Monterey, Portland and Austin, and get some pretty stupid ass answers too, then pass it off as "x% of liberals in the following locations believe Y". That doesn't make it representative of the party. You slanted supporting evidence is invalidated and excluded from this discussion, but thanks for playing.
@jrh: "MOre junk facts. Look at those numbers. Ohio, Miss, Alabam, over and over again."
Because those were the states those particular polls were conducted in you halfwit. Moreover, Ohio only was mentioned one time in the statistics. Sorry, I know counting to 1 must be difficult for you.
**** "So someone took a poll in some of the most rural areas they could find and tried to pass if off as representative of the entire political party. Retarded."
The only thing that is retarded here is you. These were polls taken because of the Republican primaries you dolt. Guess what... Mississippi and Alabama had their primaries on the same day. Oh yeah, Ohio, Georgia and Tennessee had theirs on the same day. Wow... what a "coincidence!!!" Sorry that your little tiny pea brain didn't have the intellectual capital to connect the dots all by yourself.
**** "I could go do a poll in Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Monterey, Portland and Austin, and get some pretty stupid ass answers too, then pass it off as "x% of liberals in the following locations believe Y".
That's precisely why there are reputable polling companies and some that don't have credibility. The poll done in Miss/Alabama was done by Public Policy Polling which has been deemed credible by the industry. The poll done in Georgia/Tenn/Ohio was also done by Public Policy Polling. They were ranked in the top 5 by the Wall Street Journal.
So sorry to bust your bubble. Too bad your miniscule little mind didn't have the wherewithal to go and look it up for yourself. Instead you choose to rant and rave instead of spending that time educating yourself. Then it falls on my shoulders to have to educate you.
**** "That doesn't make it representative of the party."
That likely makes it representative (with a +/- level of error included) of the party in those SPECIFIC locations you dimwit.
But here, doing a quick Google search:
April 2011: Poll done by CBS News and the New York Times: Only 33% of all Republicans NATIONWIDE believe Obama was born in the United States. Only 34% of all Tea Party members NATIONWIDE believe Obama was born in the United States.
Moreover, they are arguing a moot point. Why? Because even if it were true (which it is clearly not), so what? If he was indeed not a citizen, there is a good chance that the US Supreme Court would interpret the Const-itutional intent of the Founding Fathers to have meant that they didn't want a foreigner coming from overseas and becoming President immediately as to take over our nation back in the 1700's. This is PRECISELY why Arnold Schwarzenegger still has the potential to become President. Schwarzenegger can legally be put on the ballot and if he were to win, the US Supreme Court would have to rule on the intent of the Framers and as to whether or not that intent supersedes the voice of the American voter.
All the facts aside, all one needs to do is go hang out on random message boards to see random samplings of this. My party is filled with a bunch of simpletons who believe the Earth is only several thousand years old, that man walked with dinosaurs, that evolution is false, that we evolved from monkeys, that Obama is a Muslim and not a citizen, that Sarah Palin is a good choice to have the most important job in the world, etc, etc, etc. It is those idiots along with people who can't think for themselves (like you), that make me constantly ponder whether or not I should just become an independent voter.
**** "You slanted supporting evidence is invalidated and excluded from this discussion, but thanks for playing."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! You have NO IDEA of what you are talking about and then try to flip the tables on me?!?! That's fricken' hilarious! A demitasse would fit your head like a sombrero.
Thanks for playing.... now go back to the little boys table and let us big boys eat in peace.
Penn & teller – You are pretty damn good!
And how much trust does anyone place in the vast majority of these studies and reports, including those by the "American Socioillogical Review" ? How can anyone not trust science and math ? They're more or less processes ! Sure, placing trust in the humans that perform them might be an entirely different matter, but don't even think about insulting science itself. As if there wasn't enough untrustworthy things in this world to write about !
Yup, let us erode any faith we have in our scientists and start believing in allah the magnificent.
hehehe...
My life has been threatened too many times.
I am never coming back here.
The islamic agenda wins.
You have been punked.
April Fools!
hehehehe...
"Trust in Science?"
How misleading.
"Science" is not a statement to be believed or disbelieved.
It is a METHOD to be used or to not be used.
Only the individual experiments, demonstrations, and data sets can be called either accurate or inaccurate.
And do you really think that "to believe that the NEWS of global warming was exaggerated," is the same as not believing in the Scientific Method? I don't care if you read Fox or CNN. All news agencies are run entirely by sensationalist b@5+@rd5. Every last one of them. How do people not get this, by now?
GOP don't trusts scientists.
Now Palin and Romney is another story.......
BD
That's because we only trust science when we're using it to nuke other countries.
So basically the headline can be rephrased as such:
"Conservatives place little trust in logic and reasoning"
Science is logic and reasoning. All it is. It's not some devious conspiracy, it's the concept of using our cerebral cortex to derive truth via hypothesis, study, and testing.
I find it odd how some many well educated people posting has such passionate hatred for conservatives have taken a good look at what they are doing. I bet that most of them would be posting on the articles about Trayvon Martin about the evils of bigotry, stereotyping and profiling. They do not relies that is exactly what they are doing here. For instance: take Allenwoll's statement of "the term 'educated Conservative' is an oxymoron" and replace the word 'conservative' with black man. Is this NOW profiling, just because I changed one word, or is the sentence in-of-itself a bigoted statement.
As to the proof of what is really going on and the bigotry built into this garbage of an article is that nowhere in the article does it say that conservative choose religion over science. All of you bad-mouthing conservatives have brought that preconceived conclusion yourself. In fact the only thing that the article says is that conservatives used to believe in science MORE than liberals, and that they now do not trust the current reporting system of the science. They think it is flawed, and they will not trust it blindly.
and no one should trust anyone or anything "blindly".
I am favoring the right. Not very conservative or liberal. I trust science and am agnostic. What I don't trust is the media. I call what you all do (CNN/FOX/whomever) as the "science" of telling "your truth" not "the" truth.
I don't understand how you could not merge science and God together. This is how he made the world, and very smart scientists to further the development of problem solving, healing, and understanding how our world works. Why would God not want that for you? And why is it so hard for them to believe? Because most of them think the world was made in 7 days, that Adam and Eve, were actually one man and one woman, although the Hebrew translation could also mean, "man/woman" in general, and mostly because they do not realize that the story of Genesis was an adaptation of a story from Sumerian culture, yes, Sumerians, who were pagan! Look it up! Every story passed down was adapted from somewhere and Christians are experts at converting pagan culture and stories to fit theirs. Can we say winter solstice? And even though Jesus was most likely born in June, they moved it to December to enhance the festivities and rewrite the pagan holiday! So really, all Genesis does is promote a lovely story that somewhere and somehow in time, the world was made. And God saw fit to evolve a soul into humans. The rest is history. Science cannot clash with God because science is of God.
**** "I don't understand how you could not merge science and God together."
I don't understand how you could not merge science and Amun Ra together. I don't understand how you could not merge science and Zeus together. I don't understand how you could not merge science and Santa together. See how silly it sounds?
One has its basis in fact and the other has its basis in "belief." I once had a "belief" that the Tooth Fairy was real.
**** "Why would God not want that for you?"
God wants a lot of great things... such as children in Africa with their ribcages showing, flies in their eyes, parents dead from starvation or HIV, but with a Bible in their hand. How nice of God.
**** "And why is it so hard for them to believe?"
The bigger question is why is it so easy for you to believe? Have you read the Bible? It is riddled with error after error after error.
As a tiny sampling, it contradicts itself starting in THE VERY FIRST TWO CHAPTERS of Genesis when the order of creation is mixed up to having only 2 of the 4 Gospel writers bothering to talk about the birth of Jesus (and those two accounts conflict with each other so badly that their timelines actually make it IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to even have been born based on their accounts) to 3 of the 4 Gospel writers not agreeing on what the final words of Jesus were. If I saw the Son of God die right in front me, I think I'd remember his last words verbatim.... wouldn't you? I think you would.
Moreover, Jesus had 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters. Isn't it is pretty interesting that Jesus' brothers didn't follow him around everywhere... I know that if my brother were the Son of God, I'd always be at his side every second of the day. Yet apparently, they didn't deem it to be of uber importance. If your brother was the Son of God, wouldn't you follow him everywhere? I think you would.
Those items are just the tip of the iceberg.
With that said, logic dictates that one of two things has to be true:
1) God is an idiot who couldn't remember the order of creation, Jesus' birthdate, Jesus' final words, etc.
2) God is not an idiot and therefore didn't write the Bible.
I'll let you decide which you want to believe.
The Bible is an antiquated book written by uneducated people 2,000 years ago, many of whom would have erroneously believed the Earth to be flat. The facts are that a child in 4th grade today knows more about the world that we live in than did the uneducated men who wrote the Bible. It is ironic that Christians would NEVER let a 4th grader dictate the course of their life, but when it comes to the Bible, then it all of the sudden “magically” becomes OK to do so. It is absolutely mind-boggling.
If you believe God is intelligent, then you’d realize that he could have never written the Bible because it is riddled with errors. It is a slap in the face of God’s intelligence to even think he could have written something that I wouldn’t have even received a “C” in my English class on because it has so many errors in it. This isn't to say that there isn't a Supreme Being (as one cannot disprove a negative), just that it isn't the one from the Bible.
And it isn't just Christianity because other religions fall into the same category of fantasy as well.
*** "Because most of them think the world was made in 7 days"
Actually, it was made it 6 days.
**** "that Adam and Eve, were actually one man and one woman"
How many people do you know that are hundreds of years old? How many talking snakes do you know?
**** "although the Hebrew translation could also mean, "man/woman" in general"
Of course because the Bible can be made to justify ANYTHING. Why? Because it is ridiculously va-gue. There is an excuse/rationalization for almost anything. If you want to love your kids, you can justify it. If you want to beat your kids, you can justify it.
**** "and mostly because they do not realize that the story of Genesis was an adaptation of a story from Sumerian culture, yes, Sumerians, who were pagan! Look it up! Every story passed down was adapted from somewhere and Christians are experts at converting pagan culture and stories to fit theirs. Can we say winter solstice? And even though Jesus was most likely born in June, they moved it to December to enhance the festivities and rewrite the pagan holiday!"
We agree.
*** "So really, all Genesis does is promote a lovely story that somewhere and somehow in time, the world was made. And God saw fit to evolve a soul into humans. The rest is history."
That's profound. A book needed to tell a fictional story about the fact the world was made.
**** "Science cannot clash with God because science is of God."
Cool, so then God is in favor of nuclear weapons, abortion, euthanasia, Agent Orange, etc, etc, etc
Regarding say the Biblical flood story vs science:
Virtually ALL cultures have mammoth flood stories and Noah's story was "borrowed" from other flood stories that preceded the Bible... just like Jesus wandering in the desert in the NT was lifted from Moses wandering the desert in the OT and just like Moses was lifted from other stories preceding the Bible.
As for Noah's ark, it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to have lived even if he did build the ark.
Why don't you just ask yourself how the Noah story is possibly true? As a CHILD, I realized that this was impossible.
Just ask yourself this: Since the Bible is apparently inerrant, how exactly Noah was able to get 2 of every species (7 of some depending on which passage you read since the Bible contradicts itself) on a boat? The story is pretty clearly fiction.
#1: There is no geological evidence of a global flood that destroyed the Earth.
#2: The Biblical story of Noah has contradictions in it.
#3: The only people I know that live to be over 500 years old are fictional. Noah, Gandalf, Yoda, etc.
#4: How exactly did Noah gather up marsupials that are native to Australia?
#5: Anyone who has seen the Crocodile Hunter knows that one man grabbing a croc isn't easy work. And anyone who has ever tried to catch a stray cat or dog knows how hard it is... now imagine doing that with 600 pound tiger. Now imagine a multi-hundred year old man doing it.
#6: How exactly did Noah provide food for all of those different animals when the entire Earth was covered in water? An elephant can eat well in excess of 500 lbs of food per day. Perhaps he just pulled the ark into the floating Costco drive thru window. lol
The list goes on and on.
Stop and think about this. That's 40,000 pounds of food alone for just two elephants!!! Now let's throw in 2 blue whales onto the boat. They can weigh around 400,000 pounds each!!! On top of that, they can eat over 8,000 pounds of krill per day!!! That's 640,000 pounds of food just for the whales!!! The weight of the whales and their food now equals 1,440,000 pounds. In comparison, the main space shuttle orbiter has a maximum landing weight of 230,000 pounds. So Noah's Ark would have held the weight of more than 6 space shuttles at maximum landing weight just with the 2 blue whales alone. (none of that even begins to talk about the fact that Noah would have needed to bring along more than 2 (or 7) individual krill to feed those whales.)
And don't say something like, "The whales could just swim along side the ark" because that much excess water (that supposedly flooded the earth) would have changed the salinity levels in the oceans. If you've ever owned salt water fish before, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Funny how they don't teach that stuff in church huh?
The above is only talking about 2 species (elephants and blue whales). What about Great White Sharks, Orcas, Grizzlies, Lions, Tigers, Hippos, etc, etc, etc... Never to mind the fact that some animals are carnivores only, so Noah would have needed to bring WAY more than 2 (or 7) animals of some kinds aboard.
Oh yeah, when Noah (being well over 500 years old) has his ship run aground on top of Ararat, how exactly does he then get all the marsupials back to Australia, all the grizzlies back to Western North America, all the polar bears back to the North Pole, all the anacondas back to South America, all the emperor penguins back to Antarctica, etc, etc, etc? Does he build another boat? lol
I won't even begin to talk about how we discover new species every single day. But I guess Noah found all of those too.
Seriously, try to explain the Noah story ON YOUR OWN and you'll see that it has no reasonable explanation. Why? Because it is a fictional story. To believe this story is real, I'll ask for evidence of other 900 year old men (by valid scientific sources), evidence of a flood that covered the earth (King's Holly was found in Tasmania that is over 43,000 years old so the flood didn't happen in the last 43,000 years), etc, etc, etc... You can't provide it because it is a fictional story. It is basic common sense. If I said Bill Gates gathered up two of every species and put them on a boat, you'd laugh because it is impossible, yet because it is in a 2,000 year old book written by uneducated men, it somehow makes it fact. Simply mindboggling.
Additionally:
NO HUMAN could have survived if that much water flooded the Earth.
Here are a handful of the problems:
1) Direct evidence for a global flood is non-existent.
2) There is no flood signature on the Earth itself.
3) To flood the Earth, we'd need 5 times the volume of water that exists in the oceans.
4) If we took ALL the water from the oceans, ALL the water from the ice, ALL the water contained in the atmosphere and ALL the water from the rocks (which has actually happened in the past), it STILL doesn't flood the Earth.
5) If it rained for 40 days and nights non stop it STILL doesn't flood the Earth.
6) It is impossible to have that much water come out of the Earth via springs, geysers and "cracks." If all of that water was contained inside the Earth (as many Christian "claim" is the case when they get desperate because the other options clearly don't work), then you wouldn't have been able to walk on the surface because the Earth's crust would have turned into a literal quicksand soup.
7) If it was a miracle that allowed this much water to happen, then Noah and the animals would STILL have been dead because of the massive amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would have drowned them simply by breathing. That is of course if they were lucky enough to get in a few breaths before the atmospheric pressure crushed their lungs and killed them first before they drowned.
8- If was caused by geysers alone, then you still wouldn't have been able to breathe due to the huge amounts of sulfuric gases.
9) Since NONE of that can cause the flood, the only other option is a comet due to it carrying water with it. The problem here is that comet would have needed be 1,000 miles wide or approximately the size of Brazil. This would have forced the temperature of the atmosphere to skyrocket all the way up to 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit or hotter than the surface of the sun. There would have been no life left on Earth.
10) As can be plainly seen, this story is fiction.
Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE. To realize it is impossible means you understand reality. To not accept this is to live in delusion. It is "scientific fact" versus "religious supersti-tion."
Sorry, this comment was meant for "jrh" below:
Of course they don't believe in science. They have jesus,
It was conservatives who almost roasted Galileo for saying that Earth revolves around the Sun. That's all I need to know about them.
Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of a supreme being. Regardless of whether one does or does not believe, it is pointless and lame that people keep trying to argue one vs the other or even invoke one in the argument over the other. Science and religion do not affect the validity of each other, nor are they mutually exclusive.
**** "Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of a supreme being."
That's because science can't disprove a negative. Science can't prove nor disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny, the Boogeyman, Santa Claus, etc. But hey, I guess it is OK for adults to walk around at work believing in those items as well since by your "logic," science can't disprove their existence.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
*** "Regardless of whether one does or does not believe, it is pointless and lame that people keep trying to argue one vs the other or even invoke one in the argument over the other."
Cool, so by your "logic," it is pointless for sane, rational adults to try and convince insane, delusional adults that Yoda, Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc are not real. We should all just let them live in a world of delusion because after all that is SO healthy for our species.
*** "Science and religion do not affect the validity of each other, nor are they mutually exclusive."
LOL... the Bible and many adherents claim God flooded the entire world. Yet science knows this isn't true. The Bible talks about the "pillars" of the Earth, yet science knows that is not true. The Bible says whatever you pray for it WILL be done, yet science knows that isn't true.
Good luck with your world of delusion.
I left an additional comment on this topic above that went to the incorrect location regarding an example of Noah versus science.
Feynman和Schwinger都早慧但是Schwinger教早受教育，18岁就在Colunbia拿到学士学位，据说他博士论文的内容此时就已经完成了，只是到了21岁“才”拿到Ph.D，所以他早熟，使得他严谨的风格得到很大的强化，他年轻时的文章都很老成。Feynman一辈子都是顽童性格，18岁时上大学，蔑视权威，后来搞出Path Integral，搞出Feynman diagram ，正是从这个意义上，他风头压过了Schwinger，加上酷爱作秀（Gell man就对此很不满），名声自然远扬科学界外。在1980年美国Fermi实验室举行的关于粒子物理的会议上，Schwinger作了Renormalization and Quantum Electrodymonic的演讲，在这篇优美动人且充分展现Schwinger高超英语应用能力的文章中，他说了一句动人心弦的话：like the iioscln chip of more recent years, the Feynman diagram was bringing computation to the masses
Conservatives think this way because............
They only have faith in stripping money out of the funding for science and research. They can care less about the results.
THIS IS WHY CANCER AND AIDS and so on will never be cured.
Just a thought
Conservatives put little trust in science?
Does this mean that they also distrust Medical Science? Oh wait. To them, medicine is NOT science. Oh, my bad...
CNN should learn how to spell percent. Look in the last line, "perecent" DERP
Its ok Conservatives I don't think Science likes you that much either.
The Earth is a closed ecosystem of & Billion People. A race of beings whom have learned to utilize fossil fuels that the Earth had sequestered. We pump that stuff back into the atmosphere on a daily basis, faster than is can be absorbed. Do logical educated minds really believe we have no or little impact on the environment? Seriously?
Conservatives place a great deal of trust in science, but we balance it with common sense.
Liberalism? It's a mental disorder.
And that's pure science.
By common sense you mean like a supernatural being came and created Earth in 6 days. Or that he/she/it impregnated a human to bear its child. Common sense? You gotta be kidding me.
And, on the seventh day, God rested, saw the world He had created, and said, 'Oh Crap! What have I done?'
The labels 'conservative,' 'moderate' (or 'middle-of-the-road' to some pollsters) and 'liberal' are self-descriptions, my initial response was to ask, are 'conservatives' the same cohort as in 1978? I doubt it. The country has moved very far to the right compared with 1978. What was 'moderate' then is left-wing now.
Conservatives who don't reject evolution, global warming, environmental studies, etc are in the minority. Publicly stating these opinions will quickly bring calls of RINO (Rupublican In Name Only) from your "own people". If you feel strongly then perhaps you should work to educate and bring logic and reason back to the majority of your party rather than blaming everything on the media and the great liberal conspiracy to make Republicans look exactly as they want to look.