Oops. Be careful when you say “I trust scientists” …

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 26, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Someone might hear you. Wonder how you could possibly mean that.

Further to the legacy mainstream media trying to get undeclared US Prez candidate Scott Walker to explain what he believes about evolution, here’s what happened when some progressive party hacks tried the ol’ “I trust scientists” schtick:

The official Twitter of the Democrat Party attempted to be snarky today and tweeted an image that implied that Republicans are anti-science:

…Right.

Responses appeared swiftly, for example:

Except on vaccines, GMOs, gluten allergies, homeopathy, etc RT @TheDemocrats: RT if you agree. pic.twitter.com/B0BfDHWTqC

@TheDemocrats depends on the scientists. I don’t trust anyone that’s involved in Monsanto or others of that ilk.

KeepCalmAndDrawl @FormerlyFormer
@TheDemocrats No, I don’t trust scientists. I don’t 100% trust any category of “human.” I do generally trust science, though. Not same thing

@TheDemocrats So we agree that #fracking is safe?

Yeah. Lingering memories of Whole Foods…

See also: Scott Walker says most people don’t care about the issues media obsess over

Note: The entire Uncommon Descent news operation is run from a highly elite and sophisticated ice dump somewhere in Canada, where US politics is a spectator sport—but not nearly as popular as firewagon hockey or Tim Horton’s.

Back to science coverage shortly.

Added: The interesting thing is that ” vaccines, GMOs, gluten allergies, homeopathy, etc ” and “fracking” are science questions that have a bearing on public health and safety. “Evolution” (whatever the blowdrys think it means) generally doesn’t. Or when it does,the issues move well out of the blowdrys’ purview. For example, what if most antibiotic resistance is not Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) but horizontal gene transfer (HGT) among colonies of bacteria- as may well be the case? Chances are, the blowdrys have never heard of HGT. So again, why is anyone watching their shows?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.bornagain77_{February 27, 2015
February
02
Feb
27
27
2015
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

#2 Jstanley01
“Trust but verify.” -Ronald Reagan
This is actually the English translation of a Russian proverb: Dover'aj, no prover'aj. Stalin liked to quote it to justify his paranoid suspicion of everything and everybody.Piotr_{February 27, 2015
February
02
Feb
27
27
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

@velikovskys: YouGov poll: 67% of Republicans, 81% of Democrats support government vaccine mandatesJWTruthInLove_{February 27, 2015
February
02
Feb
27
27
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

It seems anti vax is bipartisan Rep. Barry Loudermilk, the Republican chairman of the House Science and Tech subcommittee, didn’t vaccinate his kids. The Georgia representative divulged the fact during a town-hall meeting last week, when a woman asked about a potential Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scheme to cover up information linking vaccines to autismvelikovskys_{February 27, 2015
February
02
Feb
27
27
2015
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Trusting 'scientists' to inform a government on morality is insane! Governments, by and large, make laws for a society based on the underlying Theistic belief that moral laws are objective and real. Of course, some of the laws that governments make are only managerial or administrative in purpose, (such as what side of the road to drive on), and are only moral in the sense that they provide the benefit of social cohesion. But the most important laws that governments make for us personally are clearly based on the Theistic belief that morality is objective and real. Such as the objective moral belief that it is wrong to discriminate against a person based on Race, Religion, or Sex.
If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: Prager University - Peter Kreeft - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVYpBwXWLk Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M The Moral Argument - drcraigvideos - 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
Moreover, where governments have gone most severely wrong, in their duty to write and enforce moral laws that are beneficial for the people of a society, is precisely when they have trusted 'scientists', (which is obviously a code word for 'Darwinists' in this instance), so as to inform those governments as to what is morally right and wrong.
The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society - Dr. Phil Fernandes – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcQfwICe2Og
One need only look to the ashes of the atheistic regimes of the twentieth century to see just how destructive 'trusting scientists', i.e. trusting Darwinists, can be for a society. The twentieth century is littered with the corpses of millions upon millions of innocent people precisely because of the 'amorality' that is inherent within Darwinism and the government's willingness to unquestionably 'trust scientists' to underwrite the (a)morality for that society:
Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin's Latest Biographer -- and a Pretty Devastating One - David Klinghoffer - October 14, 2012 Excerpt: "Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief," were students of Darwin, ,,, Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection "to its logical conclusion." "Leading Communists," moreover, "from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" considered evolution "essential to the self-respect of Communists. ... Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power." Even Stalin,, "had Darwin's 'struggle' and 'survival of the fittest' in mind" when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,, ,,the "emotional stew" Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century's genocides.,,, No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin "for millions of deaths." But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin's theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences -- well, that's obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein). There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/historian_paul_065281.html How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm
Thus when a person says he is a 'democrat' because he 'trust scientists', that person clearly has no clue just how damaging 'trusting scientists' is for the moral values that he himself holds most near and dear (such as equality for all people).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - United States Declaration of Independence
bornagain77_{February 27, 2015
February
02
Feb
27
27
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H at 3 presumably knows as well as anyone else that 1. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), while validated in many cases, is NOT what the blowdrys mean by "evolution." It also isn't what Darwin or the Darwinians/neo-Darwinians mean by evolution (they mean natural selection acting on random mutations, with VERTICAL transmission - at least get the angle right, and we are sailing). 2. Whatever is or isn't a mechanism of evolution is not at issue here. If it were, the blowdrys would not be asking Scott Walker. They wouldn't likely understand, for one thing. No reasonable person would involve them. Their skills are limited to playing Gotcha! Flyover moron! Their followers' skills are limited to applause. 3. The blowdrys have zero interest in science as such. If they did, they would be all over any number of "science-based" scams and the ongoing scandal of peer review in medical science. Crickets? Anyone hear the crickets? Again, people. Why was the navbar invented? Don't look for someone to free you. Free yourself. Then free others.News_{February 27, 2015
February
02
Feb
27
27
2015
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

In what way is HGT and its effects not evolution? It's just another form of gene flow, which we've been studying for decades.Bob O'H_{February 27, 2015
February
02
Feb
27
27
2015
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

"Trust but verify." -Ronald Reaganjstanley01_{February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

I think this post nailed it! To the extent that Republican candidates are asked if they "believe in evolution", Democrat candidates need to be asked if they "trust science". The Democratic candidate that responds "yes" needs to be bombarded with your list: vaccines, GMOs, gluten allergies, homeopathy, fracking, etc.bFast_{February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply