A fine choice for the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology

[Vladimir]

You have to be crapping me. Not only does this mental-case have such overwhelming voter support in his riding that the dems don't even bother fielding a candidate in opposition, but he manages to get himself appointed to a committee that he believes represents nothing but Satan's lies. What the hell is happening, Americans?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...l-8202896.html

Meh. Show me a country without crazy politicians, or worse, soulless ones who pander to their constituency.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't even understand why there is a Committee for science, space and technology when the majority of politicians are lawyers who have no idea what the experts tell them. If they don't already shut themselves in their bible to begin with.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

[Strike For The South]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

See: New Atheism

I am a big fan of Goulds NOMA, even if I am irreligious. People who tend to use science as the be all end all are generally 20 year old white suburbanites who use the words science and belief interchangeably/

[Sasaki Kojiro]

See: New Atheism

I am a big fan of Goulds NOMA, even if I am irreligious. People who tend to use science as the be all end all are generally 20 year old white suburbanites who use the words science and belief interchangeably/

Or worse

[Goofball]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

I find it amusing that you call a guy who, when it comes to explaining the mysteries of the cosmos, has chosen to wholeheartedly believe in a bunch of stories written by guys who would have had heart attacks if they had ever seen an electric train set a "skeptic."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I find it amusing that you call a guy who, when it comes to explaining the mysteries of the cosmos, has chosen to wholeheartedly believe in a bunch of stories written by guys who would have had heart attacks if they had ever seen an electric train set a "skeptic."

I didn't call him a skeptic.

[Goofball]

I didn't call him a skeptic.

Sorry. I guess I don't understand your post.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

Which is why I don't understand why there is a committee at all. Politicians with a background in law in general shouldn't be making decisions about science and engineering.

[Kralizec]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

If it were a non-science post, I would prefer a politician who is smart and denies evolution over a dumb politician who toes the line.

This guy occupies a science related post and speaks at an event with (presumably) a large amount of people where he denounces the prevailing scientific view as "lies from hell". Big surprise, it leaks to the public. From the looks of it he's an idiot, so he's doubly handicapped for his position.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If it were a non-science post, I would prefer a politician who is smart and denies evolution over a dumb politician who toes the line.

This guy occupies a science related post and speaks at an event with (presumably) a large amount of people where he denounces the prevailing scientific view as "lies from hell". Big surprise, it leaks to the public. From the looks of it he's an idiot, so he's doubly handicapped for his position.

Obviously we'd all prefer smart politicians but we have to work with humanity here. What kind of politicians would be good at this post? Who knows. But I think the worst are the credulous ones who are overly pro-science. Creationists are mostly harmless. They would only be terrible if they were holding us back from these amazing scientific breakthroughs we could be making if only we funded such and such that would change the world, or something utopian like that. Scientists have been pulling the wool over the eyes of other people to get funding and support for ages.

It's a mistake to think that believing in evolution makes a politician significantly more competent at judging science stuff than this guy is. There are many ways in which people are dumb about science that have nothing to do with religion.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obviously we'd all prefer smart politicians but we have to work with humanity here. What kind of politicians would be good at this post? Who knows. But I think the worst are the credulous ones who are overly pro-science. Creationists are mostly harmless. They would only be terrible if they were holding us back from these amazing scientific breakthroughs we could be making if only we funded such and such that would change the world, or something utopian like that. Scientists have been pulling the wool over the eyes of other people to get funding and support for ages.

It's a mistake to think that believing in evolution makes a politician significantly more competent at judging science stuff than this guy is. There are many ways in which people are dumb about science that have nothing to do with religion.

What world are you living in? There are school boards with majority creationist members that actively attempt to dismantle science classes by forcing their religious doctrine into the textbooks. Fundamentalists do try to rewrite history textbooks as well with revisionist history of their own. "mostly harmless" my ass.

"Pulling the wool over the eyes of other people" yeah, because the spin off technologies from NASA totally would be around today if we had not sunk millions into our space program....

[drone]

As a GT grad, I am highly amused that this man's district contains the University [sic] of Georgia.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What world are you living in? There are school boards with majority creationist members that actively attempt to dismantle science classes by forcing their religious doctrine into the textbooks. Fundamentalists do try to rewrite history textbooks as well with revisionist history of their own. "mostly harmless" my ass.

You think creationism is the worst thing we could put in our textbooks? You think it wouldn't be drowned in the mountains of trash that are already there? Do you know how many different groups are at work putting BS into textbooks?

History textbooks will never be good because you cannot teach history from a textbook. History classes will never be good because there is no way on earth to get enough competent teachers. All you can teach is facts and a simplified story. You can't bring together a committee of leading historians and have them put out a good history textbook, if only the fundamentalists are excluded, it doesn't work like that.

"Pulling the wool over the eyes of other people" yeah, because the spin off technologies from NASA totally would be around today if we had not sunk millions into our space program....

NASA is just fine as far as I know. But there is a ton of bad science.

The prestige of science and the false authority that results from it is a bigger problem than fundamentalists denying things so they feel happier in their faith.

[HoreTore]

Obviously we'd all prefer smart politicians but we have to work with humanity here. What kind of politicians would be good at this post? Who knows. But I think the worst are the credulous ones who are overly pro-science. Creationists are mostly harmless. They would only be terrible if they were holding us back from these amazing scientific breakthroughs we could be making if only we funded such and such that would change the world, or something utopian like that. Scientists have been pulling the wool over the eyes of other people to get funding and support for ages.

It's a mistake to think that believing in evolution makes a politician significantly more competent at judging science stuff than this guy is. There are many ways in which people are dumb about science that have nothing to do with religion.

You don't "believe" in evolution. You only accept the fact that there are no competing theories as good as evolution.

"Believing" in other theories should get you rightfully branded as the village idiot, not be allowed to make important state decisions. Creationism is a very serious contender for "biggest pile of crap on the planet"-prize. It is idiotic almost beyond compare.

When confronted by the fact that such people are elected representatives in the US, I have to close my eyes and repeat "Silicon Valley and Harvard" over and over to avoid seeing the entire coutry as primitive savages.

[Kralizec]

Your views seem pretty strange to me. I don't mean that in a bad way; I'm genuinely puzzled.

Science is supposed to reflect our knowledge of the universe and everything in it, including ourselves. Science researchers are supposed to advance our knowledge. An "intelligent design" supporter would argue that evolution is a bad theory, or at least a questionable one. He would not question the concept of "science" as such, just the prevailing view on this particular subject.

The odd part is that while layman supporters of the evolution theory would characterise creationists/ID supporters as anti-science as name calling, you seem to accept the label as a legitimate position.

But I think the worst are the credulous ones who are overly pro-science.

That a person accepts the evolution theory tells us nothing about his intelligence. Undoubtedly there are many politicians, and people in general, who accept the evolution theory without trying to understand it, or the evidence in favour of it. How are they worse than the credulous ones who started taking the bible literally at some point and never questioned it since?

[Furunculus]

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

I am a big fan of Goulds NOMA, even if I am irreligious. People who tend to use science as the be all end all are generally 20 year old white suburbanites who use the words science and belief interchangeably/

100% brothers!