Who Believes in Evolution

well yes, especially since it was the "broader group" that voted to have him installed as chairman. At the least they have no problem with hi anti science stance.
Does that not seem like an endorsemment of the larger committee?

Mature individuals who seek knowledge having the ability to understand. Who are appreciative. Kind. Honest. Understanding. Sensible. Else similar.

Well, I sure didn't vote for him, I'm a lifetime Republican, and my whole life has science as a guiding force. I have two degrees in Physics. It seems to me that you have to ignore quite a lot to maintain your position that Republicans are Luddites.

Where did you come upon my description?

de·scrip·tion [dih-skrip-shuh n]
—noun
a statement, picture in words, or account that describes; descriptive representation.
the act or method of describing.
sort; kind; variety: dogs of every description.
Geometry.
the act or process of describing a figure.

The word, evolution..?

You wouldn't happen to be a bot, would you?

As I think to myself.

Thanks for the info.

I take that into consideration, as I have a smart science guy in my family who is republican too, so not all republicans, but the loud ones sans clue take over the media noise. Or, better, or it's a mix, the media take over them. Or, well, all of us, on occasion.

I have a female cousin who was there in the freedom riders time, was then and now republican, but hated the hate and prejudice.
Generalizing is sloppy, but most of us do it some of the time.
So, nods to Brandon.

This is a tough one.

I don't know whether you understand my position. YOU don't vote for the committee chairmen. YOUVE voted to make the House a virtual stronghold of Republican ideals. Once your votes have elected the majority party, THEY install their own committee members since they control the agenda.
If you are as "science oriented" as you say then you too should be worried at how the "Core members" of the Conservative side of the GOP have been slowly taking over with committees and subcommittees that are "FRIENDLY" to what I consider 'anti-scientific" positions.
You may wish to get involved in the initial pre- selection process of those you elect, rather than try to justify what they've done.


I didn't say that all republicans are anti evolution. I said that the present war on science seems to be run by the Right wing of the GOP, and this has included the chairmanship of the science and tech subcommittee of the HOUSE.
I cringe at how folks like you , normally reasonable in their thinking, could give this a pass as just"politics". It isn't "just politics", its a rising tide of the culture wars, and maybe some of other basic tenets of science will be challenged next (like Heliocentrism).

My point seems to have slipped by you and osso. Im criticizing the concept of how we could have reached the point where such a worldview is welcomed in committee leadership of a subcommittee that is supposed to be "SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY". All you've done is try to turn it around to defend your GOP connections.WRONG ATTITUDE.

The election of these luddite dudes , says, to me, that, statistically, there are more people on that committee who welcome the concept of the Supernatural and anti science to be included within the business of that committee.
Does this not even get you concerned? I can understand your partisanship. I do some of the same when criticized by several on this board. If you are trained in Physics and someone came along to represent you in Congress , and this person is an anti Copernican, , and he was invited to chair an important committee on NASA, would you not question his or her competence?
You have a greater control of the committee makeup than do I. You are involved in your party's "primary battles" wherein many of these idiots (left and right) are selected by the party base and we are "Gifted" of them after the general election.

Think about it.

Have you, any of you seen the movie Wrong Turn? What about 2-6?

What I did was say that I know Republicans that aren't anti science. I've no argument with you that the House is heavily peopled by anti-science members.

then you weren't clear about that point. You, in essence, agreed with Brandon, who, on this issue, seems to be just totally partisan and not objective.

I was responding to Brandon (see the post) and said I took his point into consideration. His point was that all Republicans aren't luddites.

You can tell I was responding to Brandon by looking at the little green letters spelling Brandon at the top of my response. Click on that to see what he said.

I know. You agreed with him so , if I disagreed with him, I included you.

I agreed with him that not all Republicans are luddites. I gave you the link which I was answering. I think the luddite faction, rather overwhelming by now, is very dangerous to our u.s. welfare and maybe the world's, but you know that, or you haven't payed attention for ten years.
This is not about me, except that you represented me incorrectly.

What does "anti-science" mean to you?

There are plenty of idiots in Congress and it's fallacious to suggest that the Democrats are "pro-science."

Both sides are "anti-science" when science reveals or suggests something which is at odds with their ideology or interests and, and "pro-science" when it is the opposite.

Personally I think it's idiotic for anyone to profess to believe nonsense like the world was created only a few thousand years ago, and ignorant in the extreme to deny evolution, but most of the people whom I've met who say they believe this stuff, don't really. They are just spouting nonsense to establish their bonafides as a fundamentalist Christian. If they are politicians, it's because they want the votes of the people who do it for hells knows why.

If the Commitee Chair that farmerman finds so intolerable is truly "anti-science," then there should be a record of actions he has taken to retard or destroy science. All politicians spew copious amounts of smelly hot air for their own political purposes, including the wonderful Democrat rationalists.

It's amusing that those on the left can immediately see through the spurious charges made by people on the right (e.g. liberals are traitors) but they embrace the hyperbolic charges made against people on the right. (Like the next thing that will be under seige is that the earth revolves around the sun)

You were quite correct in agreeing with Brandon that all Republicans aren't Luddites. You don't have to back off of it because farmerman criticized you.

You guys are getting like izzy, in that you make a bald generalization out of something I said.
MY COMMENST WERE about the subcommittee in the House and how the chairmanship was occupied by a Creationist. ANYONE who voted him in is, IMHO, a Luddite. That is entirely different than what you and Brandon and OSso are asserting.
Please lets argue on a fair plying field.
NO UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS PLEASE.

I don't have to present any evidence of my own, Im just letting the NCSE do it
The NCSE is tracking the sub -committee in whatever part of the Congressional Record it is recorded

I barely remember what you said, I was answering Brandon - as I said already, agreeing that all Republicans aren't luddites. I no doubt agree with you, farmerman, about the house subcommittee and its chairman, whatever your exact words were - I'm not looking back.

My understanding of science is related to my past years studying and working in science labs twenty years, and of course I understand evolutionary theory. I think creationism as such is ridiculous, although I understand some believe in a 'first cause' or creator and also accept evolutionary theory. I did back when I was a catholic. People are welcome to believe in creationism, but I don't want it taught in science classes.

Farmerman, this is the third time you are not listening - you align me with Brandon's larger opinion when I have disabused you of that.