Why Cons Have To Fake Things

6:05 pm EST December 8th, 2008 | News | 8 Comments

Conservatism can’t exist without puffed up propaganda because its adherents don’t see an sort of division between science and religion. That’s why they think Jesus Juice is a chemical formula.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

8 Responses to “Why Cons Have To Fake Things”

  1. Parthenon says:
    December 8, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Actually I agree with the guy. I see no problem with somebody believing that God spurred evolution and the creation of the universe through scientific processes. That was more or less the religion of many of the founding fathers. It’s when people start taking Religion’s word over science – that is, claiming global warming is a fiction because of religous reasons, etc. – that we run into problems.

  2. Jay Tea says:
    December 8, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    Right there with you, Parthenon.

    New Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth with a big bang.”

    I think it was Einstein who said that there need be no incompatibility. The Bible tells us what God did, science tries to figure out how He did it.

    Of course, I’m an agnostic, so it’s all pretty much moot to me…

    J.

  3. fafaroo says:
    December 8, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    It’s a little more complicated than that.

    If god set evolution “in motion” did god then direct evolution or let it takes its own course?

    If god did not direct evolution towards the development of human consciousness then god is not god, in the judeo-christian sense, of an all-powerful being who created man in his image.

    If god did direct evolution towards the development of human consciousness then evolution is not evolution, as a natural process defined by science.

    The two terms, god and evolution, then are by their very definitions, are mutually exclusive.

  4. ed says:
    December 8, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    I see no problem with somebody believing that God spurred evolution and the creation of the universe through scientific processes.

    Except that it’s not, you know, SCIENCE. And this dude’s allegedly in a science-based position.

    That was more or less the religion of many of the founding fathers.

    Over 200 years ago. Oh, and the founding fathers, it turns out, weren’t infallible. Don’t take it out on me, I’m just he messenger.

    The head of the EPA can’t bring himself to distinguish between science and religion. If that’s not the perfect capsule for George Bush, Jr. and the modern Republican Party, I don’t know what is.

    Worst.
    Administration.
    Ever.

  5. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    December 8, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    “The head of the EPA can’t bring himself to distinguish between science and religion.”

    Agreed. There’s a difference between saying you can accept evolution as fact and still be religious and saying there’s no difference between the scientific explanation and the religious explanation. And if you are in a government agency that relies on science, which should be all of them, then you should be fired.

  6. Parthenon says:
    December 9, 2008 at 12:33 am

    Except that it’s not, you know, SCIENCE. And this dude’s allegedly in a science-based position.

    Ed, dude heads the EPA. He’s not teaching evolutionary biology. As long as he leans on science in his field, what difference does it make?

  7. Parthenon says:
    December 9, 2008 at 12:37 am

    Over 200 years ago. Oh, and the founding fathers, it turns out, weren’t infallible. Don’t take it out on me, I’m just he messenger.

    I should have been more clear; I wasn’t suggesting that as evidence of anything. I just find it interesting.

    If god did not direct evolution towards the development of human consciousness then god is not god, in the judeo-christian sense, of an all-powerful being who created man in his image.

    Well that’s an interesting point. I’m sure those scientists who are also Christians would fall more in line with your second option. In fact an astronomer I had the chance to interview told me his Christian coworkers believe the ‘seven days as allegory’ idea.

    And if you are in a government agency that relies on science, which should be all of them, then you should be fired.

    Not to be thick here, but again, I just don’t see where his opinion on evolution has any relevance to his performance in the EPA.

  8. TroyJMorris says:
    December 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Since the beginning, Scientists have been marrying their faith with their science.