13th January 2008, 9:10 PM
Actually, it does. Do you think scientists operate in a void? No, they get funding from the government for research. Further, do you think "scientists" as a group are just always going to be there, out there in the nebulous void they operate in?
As to the first part, the funding comes from the government. If the governent collectively denies either the importance or reality of certain aspects of science or are just plain ignorant of the method, how much funding is there going to be? Further, WHAT is going to get funding? If they don't even know how information is obtained in science, "buzz words" will be sufficient to waste billions on "cold fusion" or some other fad nonsense and they may skip out on what actually needs research.
Here's why education matters. Scientists come from the population at large. They aren't another race of beings who live apart from us "under the mountain" (but they dug too deeply). If kids aren't being taught this information and more importantly about the scientific method and how information is obtained and how one can sift through to find what's real and what's fantasy, how many are going to grow up to be scientists? I'll tell you how many, a slowly diminishing amount. America who used to be top o' da world is losing out to more and more countries, and with the lack of funding driving out the scientists we do have to work where they can actually get paid, it is starting to hurt us. Japan for example seems to be leading the field in neuro research these days.
I didn't say Ron Paul doesn't "believe" in evolution. Rather I say that what he's saying shows that, if he does accept it, he sees the need to not say it to pander to those who don't, and labels it unimportant.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yPoCsC8VT9g&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yPoCsC8VT9g&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
The comments in question are in this video. For further comment, I think I should go ahead and quote the "Bad Astronomer".
<quote>I will have plenty to say about these guys soon enough — I think they are all quite unfit to command a country in the 21st century, since they seem to believe in the methods of the Middle Ages. But let me make one comment…
On a bulletin board I read, someone posed a question: imagine a candidate with whom you agreed on every issue, but who did not "believe" in evolution (I put it in quotation marks because saying that is like saying you don’t "believe" in gravity). Would you support that candidate?
You might think the answer is contingent; what about the other candidates? How do they compare? But I think that doesn’t matter. If a candidate did not "believe" in evolution, then I 100% guarantee that I will not agree with them on many other issues, and these issues will be of utmost import. The First Amendment, for example. Plus, any candidate who thinks one of the most basic laws of science is wrong would then be prey to any other antiscience huckster who wants to deny global warming, the benefits of stem cell research, and the importance of alternative energy sources… and probably dozens of other things.
Once you deny reality, the door to any and all evil is wide open.
And don’t forget: evolution is not the be-all and end-all of creationists. They want to deny the true age of the Universe, and that touches on literally all divisions of science, from astronomy to zoology. Given their way, the entire endeavor of science would be scrapped, replaced with Biblical teachings, and that would just be the start of the reversion of our society to the pre-Enlightenment. This is no exaggeration. One need only read the Wedge Document to see what these folks want to turn our world into.
And Ron Paul buys into that garbage– or he panders to those who do, which is essentially the same thing. Just so’s you know.</quote>
He's right, pandering to those who do is more or less the same thing from the perspective of what decisions he'd make.
Science is BOUND to how we should run our country, not some little side project.
As to the first part, the funding comes from the government. If the governent collectively denies either the importance or reality of certain aspects of science or are just plain ignorant of the method, how much funding is there going to be? Further, WHAT is going to get funding? If they don't even know how information is obtained in science, "buzz words" will be sufficient to waste billions on "cold fusion" or some other fad nonsense and they may skip out on what actually needs research.
Here's why education matters. Scientists come from the population at large. They aren't another race of beings who live apart from us "under the mountain" (but they dug too deeply). If kids aren't being taught this information and more importantly about the scientific method and how information is obtained and how one can sift through to find what's real and what's fantasy, how many are going to grow up to be scientists? I'll tell you how many, a slowly diminishing amount. America who used to be top o' da world is losing out to more and more countries, and with the lack of funding driving out the scientists we do have to work where they can actually get paid, it is starting to hurt us. Japan for example seems to be leading the field in neuro research these days.
I didn't say Ron Paul doesn't "believe" in evolution. Rather I say that what he's saying shows that, if he does accept it, he sees the need to not say it to pander to those who don't, and labels it unimportant.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yPoCsC8VT9g&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yPoCsC8VT9g&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
The comments in question are in this video. For further comment, I think I should go ahead and quote the "Bad Astronomer".
<quote>I will have plenty to say about these guys soon enough — I think they are all quite unfit to command a country in the 21st century, since they seem to believe in the methods of the Middle Ages. But let me make one comment…
On a bulletin board I read, someone posed a question: imagine a candidate with whom you agreed on every issue, but who did not "believe" in evolution (I put it in quotation marks because saying that is like saying you don’t "believe" in gravity). Would you support that candidate?
You might think the answer is contingent; what about the other candidates? How do they compare? But I think that doesn’t matter. If a candidate did not "believe" in evolution, then I 100% guarantee that I will not agree with them on many other issues, and these issues will be of utmost import. The First Amendment, for example. Plus, any candidate who thinks one of the most basic laws of science is wrong would then be prey to any other antiscience huckster who wants to deny global warming, the benefits of stem cell research, and the importance of alternative energy sources… and probably dozens of other things.
Once you deny reality, the door to any and all evil is wide open.
And don’t forget: evolution is not the be-all and end-all of creationists. They want to deny the true age of the Universe, and that touches on literally all divisions of science, from astronomy to zoology. Given their way, the entire endeavor of science would be scrapped, replaced with Biblical teachings, and that would just be the start of the reversion of our society to the pre-Enlightenment. This is no exaggeration. One need only read the Wedge Document to see what these folks want to turn our world into.
And Ron Paul buys into that garbage– or he panders to those who do, which is essentially the same thing. Just so’s you know.</quote>
He's right, pandering to those who do is more or less the same thing from the perspective of what decisions he'd make.
Science is BOUND to how we should run our country, not some little side project.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)