Skip to main content

The comparable figure for Dems is 55%.  Here's the data:

%who are               Public%     Scientists%
Democratic               35            55
Republican                23             6
Independent              34            32

Ideolog. self-rating  
Liberal                     20            52
Moderate                  38            35
Conservative             37             9

This is from a Pew Research piece on science and scientists, Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media

There is a lot more in this piece, but I want to focus on the partisan breakout in the chart above.

I am reminded of the idea that the truth has a liberal persuasion.  

I understand the partisan split fairly easily.  It has a great deal with how Republicans have tried to position themselves, to whom they have appealed for their base.

Too many Republicans are

  deny global warming and/or its human causes

  deny evolution

  are young earth creationists

  reject any science that might show liability for corporations on
     water pollution

     air pollution

     health affects of dietary fat
     health affects of tobacco

I am sure you can add to the items above.

As a teacher in a school with a science and technology program, I also note how many who self-identify as Republicans are hostile to public schools

  they want to unfund public schools

  they want to insert their non-scientific viewpoints into curricula

  they want to limit/challenge teaching of evolution/cosmology/etc

  they opposed distributing An Inconvenient Truth to schools

The more people are educated, especially but not exclusively about science, the less likely they are to support the current direction of many in the Republican party.  

Perhaps this is also why some "conservatives" do not want us to teach critical thinking to our students, because students who can think critically can appropriately evaluate science and also deconstruct the lies often offered by conservatives.

There is much else in the survey report.  It is worth reading for those.  

But for a political site like this, that stunning differential of political persuasion is the key takeaway.   So run with it.

Have a nice weekend.

And as always:


Originally posted to teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:09 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  was not planning a diary today (336+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, ljb, Alma, Terri, TXdem, Yosef 52, Kaina PDX, scribeboy, Chi, ogre, apsmith, AaronInSanDiego, Caelian, abarefootboy, Gooserock, tiponeill, madmsf, mattman, RunawayRose, DebtorsPrison, tnichlsn, mlharges, Stein, ThatTallGuy, eeff, frsbdg, Sandy on Signal, freelunch, frisco, Matilda, object16, Joe B, MarkInSanFran, eyeswideopen, KB, Wee Mama, understandinglife, AlyoshaKaramazov, Hprof, mkfarkus, samddobermann, taonow, Ignacio Magaloni, badlands, TampaCPA, kitebro, navajo, Boris Godunov, nitetalker, wader, jackmac, steve04, hhex65, dejavu, psnyder, oldjohnbrown, Dallasdoc, Miss Jones, pat bunny, Tracker, brainwave, johanus, texasmom, Catte Nappe, annetteboardman, kalmoth, lcrp, coigue, Brian82, bwintx, tomjones, Aug6PDB, vacantlook, murrayewv, TexMex, rapala, radarlady, rini, Treg, capelza, David R, JanetT in MD, SherwoodB, waitingforvizzini, PBen, Philoguy, ccasas, Simplify, dbsf, tomfool, dewtx, ChemBob, drewfromct, Dobber, mitumba, Jfriday, majcmb1, Frank Palmer, jenesq, michaelweaselo, blue jersey mom, SheriffBart, onanyes, minidriver, Rydra Wrong, Ginny in CO, pacotrey, neroden, sodalis, dazed in pa, the fan man, SocioSam, Land of Enchantment, Philpm, Mother Mags, elliott, esquimaux, gwilson, BachFan, Captain Sham, Debbie in ME, The Sinistral, vigilant meerkat, cybersaur, djbender, koNko, technomage, fizziks, EthrDemon, tecampbell, birdbrain64, gpoutney, cRedd, real world chick, happy camper, plf515, bleeding heart, MBNYC, onionjim, Cenobyte, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, MrJersey, airmarc, CharlieHipHop, HGM MA, markthshark, Eryk, Pandoras Box, pat of butter in a sea of grits, Thinking Fella, tegrat, One Pissed Off Liberal, FoundingFatherDAR, out of left field, dotsright, Loudoun County Dem, randorider, blue armadillo, dmh44, camlbacker, possum, Tailspinterry, leema, ColoTim, gloriana, moosely2006, ddriscoll, linkage, power2truth, Nespolo, HeartlandLiberal, hold tight, LamontCranston, Unbozo, bnasley, Seneca Doane, thursdays child, jnhobbs, millwood, Moderation, 2ajpuu, keikekaze, TomP, Empower Ink, VA Breeze, jgilhousen, jwinIL14, MKinTN, mconvente, condorcet, Ms Citizen, ShadowSD, Phil N DeBlanc, zerone, indyada, Fossil, Involuntary Exile, nlight, lineatus, beltane, Lujane, pamelabrown, happymisanthropy, NogodsnomastersMary, Tam in CA, mofembot, temptxan, codairem, Shaviv, luckylizard, get the red out, Virginia mom, BYw, tsunami, michaeledward, Athenocles, there but for fortune, dont think, dmhlt 66, immigradvocate, mamamarti, legendmn, satanicpanic, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, SciMathGuy, multilee, cybrestrike, Sportin Life, sustainable, rockwilder, Stranded Wind, ryan81, h bridges, velvet blasphemy, Rorgg, Nailbanger, jck, mississippi boatrat, Mercuriousss, ancblu, Carlo, ZilV, DClark4129, johngoes, obscuresportsquarterly, Losty, stevenwag, babeuf, Knarfc, doc superdog, prndl, math4barack, Leftcandid, collardgreens, Lazar, Norbrook, sulthernao, My Stupid Opinion, Alec82, Phaseshift360, p gorden lippy, flitedocnm, Vacationland, RethinkEverything, amk for obama, Hamsun, jethrock, UTvoter, stunzeed, BP in WA, Giles Goat Boy, wvmom, Ronald Singleterry, LeftyAce, Rush 2112, freeport beach PA, atxcats, legalchic, leftist vegetarian patriot, BonnieSchlitz, RJP9999, mtnlvr, dissonantharmony, ctlrick, pixxer, elginblt, ItsSimpleSimon, GayIthacan, Kristina40, wisco kid, aggie98, Actuary4Change, Texnance, Georgia Liberal, alethea, cocinero, DudleyMason, NellaSelim, VitaminD, fredlonsdale, gobears2000, Colorado is the Shiznit, RepTracker, SuperBowlXX, annominous, xgy2, deerang, msazdem, ban nock, Hopeful Skeptic, Olon, wahine, Amayi, smallgal, Aranfell, trumpeter, Dan Gallo, gater2112, dle2GA, danmitch, Inspector Javert, dakinishir, Prinny Squad, lizard people, MRA NY, antooo, corvaire, Tm3, The YENTA Of The Opera, VTCC73, curtisgrahamduff, blue aardvark, abetterperson, fayevski, Left in NY

    and but when I saw this I wanted to be sure more people also saw it.


    do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

    by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:09:47 AM PDT

  •  I'll bet that Democratic domination was (10+ / 0-)

    considerably less the case 15 or 20 years ago. Likewise the case with Hispanics as we know. Nonetheless Republicans seem unable to free themselves of voices that drive people away in droves.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:13:51 AM PDT

  •  Wow. The numbers are really stark. (21+ / 0-)

    And meanwhile, here in Texas, our illustrious Gov. has proposed an anti-public school young earth creationist to head up our replace the LAST anti-public school young earth creationist Chair.

    They may be ignorant of science but they do know how to stack the deck.

    Thanks for the information though - I had not seen that and it is really very interesting.

  •  Maybe I missed it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamarti, Buzzzsaw

    but I am not sure how they determined who or what a scientist is or how they selected their representative population or which disciplines were represented.
    As usual, I am more interested in what is under the hood than in the chassis. Too often, people like the DI or other deniers tout studies showing their support among "scientists" but any checking shows that their lists are conflated and confabulated

  •  Numbers for economics professors are similar.... (13+ / 0-)

    ....but you'd never know it from the Corporate Media because they keep foisting corporate whores as "economists" on their business shows.

  •  That's republicans for ya.. (7+ / 0-)

    proud of their stupidity.

    Nothing about that % surprises me.

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

    by jkay on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:28:04 AM PDT

    •  consider this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      3 are three PhD Physicists in Congress.

      Two are Dems -  Rush Holt and Bill Foster

      but one is a Repub - Vern Ehlers

      go figure

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:36:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm, There's a Lot of Physics In Weaponry, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        teacherken, AaronInSanDiego

        and social justice is not particularly relevant to physics.

        So I could understand there being a solid percentage of Republican physicists.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:38:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I work in the defense industry and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I work with several physicists and engineers. While the scientists are more likely to be Dems or independents, there are still a large number of Republicans among them, probably due to the industry as well as the fact that it is a Republican-leaning area.

          Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
          A yam.
          What a Yam!
          And that's all that - A yam.

          by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:31:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I meant to say that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          the scientists are more likely to be Dems and independents than the engineers are.

          Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
          A yam.
          What a Yam!
          And that's all that - A yam.

          by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:33:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Physicists are not immune to human failures (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          koNko, math4barack

          by virtue of our vast capacity to understand the esoteric workings of the universe (little snark in there; no real arrogance intended).

          Like any other group of people, physicists working in an industry are more likely to support groups and policies they believe will be a boon to their livelihood. Physicists are also most assuredly not necessarily more politically active or aware, and consequently it's entirely possible (and I'd say likely) that a good percentage of them don't make political decisions based on actual evidence as their training suggests they ought.

        •  physicist here... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon, koNko, math4barack

          to answer your question, the percentage of academic physicists who identify as GOP is probably close to the 6% number for all scientists, based on people I know within my field. On the other hand, I cannot speak for physicists working in industry or defense. My guess is that there are a few more GOPs among them, but still not many. It is no secret why the GOP has lost us either--their proud ignorance and open hostility to science. And many of us care about social justice, even if it is not particularly relevant to our enterprise.

        •  Hummmm .. Most of the Physicists I know (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Are very liberal or apolitical.

          Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

          by koNko on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:02:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Those are apalling numbers. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There really are too many lawyers in American politics.

        Do you have any historical trend data?  I'm quite curious if it is a declining trend due to the polarization and toxification of American politics over the past 20 years or so. A problem (?) with scientists is we tend to ignore what we don't see as promising.

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:59:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I completely agree. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon, koNko, happymisanthropy

          We need to lessen the influence of lawyers on public policy.

          Lawyers tend to have a certain mentality, that is sometimes useful. But it's not the only one that should be making decisions. We need input from other professions, especially scientists.

          •  That's a really good point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen.

            Scientists have an inner compulsion to learn and to solve things using real facts and complex thinking, things that don't mesh well with the world of politics. Science doesn't have to deal with political correctness or hypocrisy.

            You can't even get a republican and a democrat to agree that 1+1=2. How can a scientist flourish in that type of environment?

            Can you imagine a physicist trying to listen to Sarah Palin?

            "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

            by jkay on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:54:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Too many? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          samddobermann, koNko

          How many in congress are attorneys?

          I've worked in the legal field for 25+ years (though I am not a lawyer), and only about half of them are scum.  Attorney /= evil.

          My life is an open book, and I want a rewrite!

          by trumpeter on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:24:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did I say lawyers are scum? (0+ / 0-)

            I merely said too many. You could have too many scientists too.

            Better would be a balance of persons from various disaplines, and a higher mean education level wouldn't hurt.

            Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

            by koNko on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If your job is to make law. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              you should have at least some understanding of it.  Too many in Congress do not.

              Being multi-disciplinary is almost always a good thing, but understanding the foundations and basis of your job is necessary.

              My life is an open book, and I want a rewrite!

              by trumpeter on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 02:46:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you are going to make law on science. (0+ / 0-)

                education, transportation, etc., you should also have some understanding of it and too many lack that.

                The point is a better balance of expertise would would result in better government.

                Is there a shortage of lawyers in Congrees, Congressional staff and Washington? Hardly.

                Is there a shortage of scientists? Definately.

                Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                by koNko on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 02:27:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  there are three PhD Physicists (0+ / 0-)

                  Rush Holt, D-NJ
                  Bill Foster, D-IL
                  Vern Ehlers, R-MI

                  I am unaware of any PhDs in biology or chemistry

                  We have veterinarians (eg, John Ensign) and MDs (eg Tom Coburn, an obstetrician, and Jim McDermott, a psychiatrist)

                  There is some diversity of people from other fields.  We have people who have been school teachers - Tim Walz and Larry Kissell came directly from the classroom, and Harry Mitchell had been a school teacher before he went into politics;  we have career military - Eric Massa and Joe Sestak, to name just two;  we have a former diplomat in Glenn Nye;  

                  Those who think you need lawyers to write laws and thus most congressmen should be lawyers totally misunderstand how laws are written.  It is not the Congressmen who do the writing, it is the staff, people who specialize in that kind of writing;  and/or it is the lobbyists, who present proposals with ready-made legislative language. On this latter point I speak from experience, having been in meetings with House members where legislative language was offered.


                  do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

                  by teacherken on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 05:47:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  How old are they? I got a clue when talking (0+ / 0-)

        with not quite ex-hubby about climate change when I found his name on a list of "scientists" who were change deniers. He had all the typical arguments down pat but said said one thing that got my attention: that all the old timers knew that climate change/global warming was a crock.

        Then I realized that climate change was one of those paradigm shifts that the older guys couldn't make. This has happened in many fields. The idea of plate tectonics was presented first a bit before 1920 but didn't really get accepted until the 50s or 60s.

        The same with a real understanding of Darwin's theories didn't get to a "synthesis" until the 40s.

        And it is like how Einstein could not wrap his mind around Quantum mechanics.

        We are in a time where it is risky NOT to change. Barack Obama 7-30-08

        by samddobermann on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 12:06:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans will attribute this to elitism (12+ / 0-)

    and "brainwashing" at those bastions of liberalism, universities.  

    (currently thinking about: discourse and empathy, power and principle)

    by sophically on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:35:35 AM PDT

    •  We need Joe the Plumber to work at NASA (10+ / 0-)

      Ya just load up the rocket with some of that fuel stuff, aim it yonder, and thar she blows....

      Talk about making lemonade out of lemons --- ignorance has become the greatest virtue in Republican world, because it means not questioning authority.

      •  As It Has Always Been for the Nobility (5+ / 0-)

        The framers were paranoid about the upshot of a nobility arising in the US, but they designed their system and died before industrialization got underway and created the means for developing our own modern incarnation of nobility.

        It took us a lifetime to figure out how to contain the problem when TR and again FDR implemented steep progressive income taxation.

        But Reagan taught us never to do that again, both parties agree, and so here we are. The American Experiment returns the result that concentrated wealth ruling a large working poor class was the right system all along.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:42:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually we do have a nobility. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The framers' successors in Congress and the other branches are the nobility.  They get good benefits in Congress and retirement benefits if they were able to stay elected long enough.

          I guess you didn't notice how distant high government officials are to the people with the lobbyists hanging around the Senate committee room.  It's so sad that people believe the lies taught in grade-school History and Political Science classes about government ranging from "The Americans won the revolution because they knew the terrain better" to the abolition of nobility.

          The founders only replaced the British Ancien Régime nobility in America with the new nobility--themselves.  Many of those "nobles" were lawyers and businessmen; ever wonder how our government has been in cahoots with Corporate America for more than a century?

          Go yellow!--The next movement after green. U.S. Metric Association

          by movingforward on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:29:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Please, please, please (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        texasmom, TexMex, ajpuckett

        Don't inflict Joe the Plumber upon NASA. They have enough problems as it is. The amazing Dubya didn't figure out until Columbia that we were going to need to replace the Shuttle with something - and then funded Constellation at about 33% of what the funding would have been had he been serious about it.

        Hence, Shuttle retires next year, and Orion launches in 2014 if we're lucky. A four year gap of no launches except rented Russian Soyuz, all attributable to the fact that Dubya and minions didn't really care. Lip service and half-assed efforts were their hallmark.

        Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

        by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:23:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Authority (0+ / 0-)

        it's not about not questioning authority; it's about undermining every authority except The Authority.

        The North will rise again!

        by happymisanthropy on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 12:21:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly, and They'll Be Working to Create Their (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe B, Hprof, the fan man

      own Bible-compatible science degrees.

      It's going to be a little trickier than creating lawyers and culture leaders, because of the reality thingie, but they represent the global economy and it's got the deepest pockets on the planet.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:40:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  here's is what is shocking (2+ / 0-)

          that places like Regent (Pat Robertson), Liberty (Jerry Falwell), and Bob Jones are licensed by their respective states to train and certify teachers, including in the sciences!  Ponder that for a while.  Think about a Bob Jones trained biology teacher.

          do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

          by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:20:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  relevant part of the BJU curriculum: (0+ / 0-)

          Bio 300 - Evolution and Origins
          Discussion and critical evaluation of the biology and philosophy behind neo-Darwinism (materialism),

          Okay let's stop there.  Materialism?  WTF??  Meaning that evolution is only a construct for anti-Christians who care about the material world?  Of people who care only about material gains?  Please someone look this up somewhere, my head already hurts too much.

          the intelligent design movement and special creation. Extensive use will be made of a current evolutionary textbook, important recent monographs, scientific journal articles and position statements. The course will engage students in critical thinking and problem solving and prepare them to answer challenges to a biblical world view regarding evolution and origins.

          Oh, I bet that works well in the science- and reality-based communities.

          Bio 302 - Developmental Biology
          Gametogenesis, fertilization and embryological development of sea urchins, frogs, birds and mammals. Special emphasis will be placed on the genetics of development, genomic equivalence, differential gene expression, localized cytoplasmic determinants, cell-to-cell communication, pattern formation, induction and axis formation.

          But really - how long can Bio 302 possibly take if you learned in Bio 300 that God just snapped His fingers and everything got biologically developed about 5,000 years ago???

          •  Well, notice that (0+ / 0-)

            they don't mention comparative development in the second course description.

            Of course the instructor knows s/he has to address the topic.  But best to leave it out of the course description and maybe even off the syllabus altogether so the Department Head doesn't have to, erm, ask for a "correction" because otherwise the higher admins will want a word with him/her that will affect the security of the employment of all involved.

            It doesn't seem like a terribly sophisticated course with a lot of molecular details, anyway.  The instructor can probably softpedal any questions that arise (if they do) and dodge into the diversity (real or imagined) of development.  In 10 years that will a lot harder to do, when research shows the degree of the molecular commonality at work.

            But consider the students- very few if any of them are seriously considering going into science.  These "institutions" work on a shared willingness to ignore or deny inconvenient parts of reality.  There's a lot of Don't Ask, Don't Tell going on the part of both students and instructors in places like BJU.  To be academia in such places is to be participant in a running scam- some will be vile fraudsters, others willing or in denial and consoling themselves that they do it for a Greater Good.  And yet others will be people of sincerity nauseated by the fraud, but with nowhere else to go they become simulators and pull off Oscar-worthy performances.  Trying to give their better students some bits of serious education along the way.

            Though, to be fair, all of higher education can be and to some extent is a scam perpetrated on the students and their parents.  But to some extent with the willingness and cooperation of the latter.  I know people who teach at Harvard who are ashamed at how little real education they and their colleagues give their students versus how much instruction (in effect) in dodgy career success strategies.  But they do draw a hard line between themselves and the likes of BJU- they're not teaching their students things that will make them feeling obsolete at midlife and obstructionists of the greater good.

      •  Like conservapedia? (0+ / 0-)

        Why do conservatives hate reason and science?

        Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

        by Joe B on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:40:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  and use it to explain why creation science (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      is necessary, as an alternative and a response to secular "Democrat" science

    •  Elitism = Facts are superior to conservative (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      beliefs. So, yes.

      Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

      by Joe B on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:39:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Elitist=anyone with IQ>50 n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Heh. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    teacherken, cee4

    Nice, and thanks for posting. The republicans would probably counter, though, that their support levels among the fundamentalist clergy dwarfs ours, because we're so ungodly :-)

    Have a good weekend, everybody.

    People who speak in metaphors should shampoo my crotch. - Jack Nicholson

    by MBNYC on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:41:42 AM PDT

  •  this is the well deserved price that the (6+ / 0-)

    Gopasaurs have to pay for making their deal with the christianists devils back in the 80's.
    I how different the numbers would have been pre-moral majority days. I still think Dem's would have a big advantage but surely the GOP of old would have done better than 6% of scientists.

    "Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime" Aristotle

    by polticoscott on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:42:00 AM PDT

    •  It was a deal with Christianists and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miss Jones, koNko

      corporatists both.  The climate denial, the insistence that only oil, dams and destruction of entire mountains can bring us the energy we need, the insistence that only unregulated agribusiness can provide us with the food we need, etc, etc, stem from seeing corporate interests and corporate profits as more important than the earth itself, let alone its inhabitants, human and otherwise.

      "You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here." Max Ehrmann

      by middleagedhousewife on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:10:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dogma is another reason (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scribeboy, Fixed Point Theorem

    the faith based groups who accept all the absurdities in the Bible, e.g. walking on water, earth is 6000 years old, Noah's Ark, etc.. are at odds with science which continually questions and tests assumptions.  

    Everything from the beginning of the universe to oceanic warming is at odds with the group ( Republicans) who blindly accept what someone told them.  

    •  At odds with science (3+ / 0-)

      all the absurdities in the Bible, e.g. walking on water, earth is 6000 years old, Noah's Ark, etc.. are at odds with science

      We can also add Jesus being executed by crucifixion then magically coming back to life after 3 days-- even though science tells us that brains cell die within minutes of oxygen deprivation. The very foundation of Christianity is demonstrably absurd!
      Christianity is fundamentally at odds with science. If you are a Christian, when your beliefs are challenged, at some point you're going to be forced to say, "and then magic happened and Jesus came back to life". It is as equally silly as claiming the Earth is only 6000 years old or evolution is false.
      Let's face it, all of science tells us that there is no supernatural and we arose from wholly natural processes. All supernatural religious claims are false, even those of DKos Christians.

      Harry Reid couldn't stop a republican filibuster with 100 Democratic senators.

      by cybersaur on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:05:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  100% of the scientists (4+ / 0-)

    I've ever met are either Dems or indies.

    We need to get back to bedrock American values like torture and secession. - Josh Marshall

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:45:12 AM PDT

  •  Very interesting. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    texasmom, middleagedhousewife

    I wonder what percentage of Republicans view themselves as God given, or God driven, or more qualified to speak on religious matters than Democrats?

  •  Knew I went into the right field! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yuggs, koNko, blue aardvark

    Starting my grad work at Penn in the fall in CAMB.  Gotta love us liberal scientists (and aspiring ones!), as I sit here on my new 3GS iPhone =)

    go scientists and the truth!

    "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

    by mconvente on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:47:04 AM PDT

  •  Another interesting aspect of the survey (8+ / 0-)

    Scientists have a higher opinion of government and a lower opinion of business than does the general public.

    •  Not at all surprising... (4+ / 0-)

      Seeing as how the overwhelming majority of funding for science comes from the govt. And in contrast to, say, defense contracting, in which waste, fraud, and abuse run rampant, the sciences, in my experience, spend govt. money in an ethical and efficient manner. This is at least partly of necessity, since govt. funds for science are relatively scarce, but it is also in large part because most scientists go into science seeking knowledge, not wealth/profit/etc. This also partially explains why more of us identify as liberal than within the general public.

  •  Occams Razor, Republicans hate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Stroszek, LeftyAce

    funding science, basic and applied. When science is funded, it is heavily proscribed by the kerfuffle of the day (stem cells) . That would also explain the margin who are Democratic as opposed to Independent.

  •  just one little criticism of scientists. (3+ / 0-)

    they need to hire some PR people to put this creationism bullshit to bed once and forever.

    It really is a stain on their record allowing creationist museums to exist, and just kind of shrug.

    We need to get back to bedrock American values like torture and secession. - Josh Marshall

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:49:04 AM PDT

    •  Meh. I'd rather do my research than (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      samddobermann, ajpuckett, gatorcog

      hire PR people (and as it stands, scientists don't have sufficient funding for either).  Besides, we scientists aren't exactly organized, and honestly, when scientists tried in the 80s to fight back with the creationists, it just made them feel more legitimized (see, the scientists are debating us!  They acknowledge there are two sides!)
      When they try to stick their views in children's school books, I will fight, but if they wish to embarrass themselves and waste their money on a "museum,"  that's their problem.

      "You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here." Max Ehrmann

      by middleagedhousewife on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:19:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, critical thinking, or the notion (3+ / 0-)

        that things might possibly be other than what they perceive, are lost on fundamentalist conservatives, with very little exception.  Describing a position or presenting evidence or data just hardens their opinion for some reason.  Kind of perplexing unless you view it as a mental illness.

        Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by "equal justice under the law." - Bushy McSpokesperson

        by gatorcog on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:38:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As hard as it is to get research funding (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ajpuckett, happymisanthropy

      I won't be wasting any of mine on fighting creationism.

    •  "Allowing them to exist?" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You'd say they should be able to forceably close it down?

      Look, I despise that bastion of ignorance and lies as much as anyone, but I firmly believe those morons have the right to have it.

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:05:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Erm... (0+ / 0-)

      That's not really about science.  Despite appearances and pretensions, it's not a serious effort to compete.  All the scientific argument against it is beside the point certain ways.

      It's probably worth a long diary or a book to really get at the motivations involved.  But the short summary: these people desperately wish theism of a kind they prefer to be true.  The Biblical account of Creation is extremely important to upholding that theism, but instrumental, for good number.  One could say that Creationism is a public manifestation of that desire.

      The one Creationist 'museum' in Kentucky has a large exhibit about the "degeneration" of modern life, liberalism, etc.  That's one prong of the motivation: a desire for a simpler order based in Authority, an wish for an ordained Divine Order of the universe.  A world where intellectual uncertainty is vanquished and maturity (ability to live with uncertainty, ability to have genuine relationships- i.e. willingness to resolve problems equitably and give true care-, willingness to suffer the fate available within one's genuine possibilities) is not a strong requirement.  It's a universe where all the purposes are supposedly known or understandable- where there is a telos.  It's hard to wean people off that.  The ones who insist on an easy way (to them) of understanding the world- and it's an interpretation very favorable to themselves- cling to that very hard.

      The second prong is harder.  I can't quite make the rigorous argument for it, but the theism involved- largely one of transcendental deity- is one that guarantees an immortality of the psyche as a whole- immortality of the Self, of the ego.  Immanent deity, which is a lesser portion of that theism, seems to go with notions of corporeal immortality, i.e. physical resurrection.  I think that's the hard core of the motivation.  And it explains why older people drift to it, and why they tolerate all the absurdity and make a variety of arguments they can't sincerely believe for it.

      I don't think scientists can make much of a dent in the older generations that have come to adopt these as beliefs.  And there's a moral issue of whether one should.

      But Creationism is in decline.  While the polling about Evolution versus Creation remains endlessly disturbing, it's clear that the really stupid and intellectually perverse kinds of Creationism are in decline.  They'll only die out with the people who are fervent about them, of course, but the overall retreat and softening are obvious on a national scale.  And Biblical Creation is increasingly understood for what creation myths generally are regarded as in cultural anthropology: an explanation offered for the psychological and cultural facts within which a society lives.  Not as an effort to seriously explain material existence.

      Younger Americans are increasingly tolerant of intellectual uncertainties and not as needy for a scheme of the universe in which they (as a group) are the Center, it seems to me.  Maybe their education is better and the knowledge base/research they know of is more advanced, but the facts of globalization and the obvious failure of the provincialist elites are probably the persuasive things.

      And there seems to be a decline in social utility of ego among Americans more broadly- large ego is becoming increasingly a sabotaging flaw in social life and less a useful tool in survival/success in competition, as hierarchy slowly narrows in social legitimacy and meaning.  The result is that there seems to be a slow deflating of public and perhaps of private ego (and with it, a diminishing of conventional overtly ego-appealing formulations of leadership.  Vide Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton, and those two in contrast with the demagoguery of Bush, Cheney, Palin, etc.)  There's a broad attitude of increasing personal resistance to certain kinds of ego appeals now.  I think that attitude limits the appeal of the promise of immortality of ego/Self, and with that the appeal of many pretty crude forms of theology and religion.  

      So, maybe it's out of the hands of scientists in lots of ways.  But maybe their (our) social role is best to keep doing what they/we are doing- filling in gaps in knowledge, insisting on reality not being held in contempt in favor of illusion, and working (directly or indirectly) for improvement of the real quality and fairness of life for common people.

  •  Certain people move toward certain professions (3+ / 0-)

    Has it ever occurred to conservatives that liberals like teaching more than conservatives?

    "You think you can intimidate me? Screw you. Choose your Weapon." Eliot Spitzer

    by bonddad on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:51:43 AM PDT

    •  Most working scientists don't teach, though (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ajpuckett, middleagedhousewife

      I'd say the majority work in labs with little to no teaching duties.

      •  Working man's science (5+ / 0-)

        Most of the public views scientists as seen on the Discovery Channel, or toiling away in laboratories.  Alot of it resembles the dull routine of using and collecting data for keeping clean water flowing, food and consumer items safe, buildings from sinking into the earth, etc.  But it can be cool on those days you get a little insight into nature or something you hadn't come across before.

        Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by "equal justice under the law." - Bushy McSpokesperson

        by gatorcog on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:44:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's why I'm not a scientist. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rickeagle, ajpuckett

          When I was a child, I wanted to be an astronomer. Then I got older and realized that the everyday working life of an astronomer was dominated not by looking at cool things through a telescope, but by collecting and poring over vast amounts of boring mathematical data to find tiny aberrations here and there.

          That's what turned me toward other professions - and it also left me with nothing but quiet respect for people who have the disciplined minds and endless patience that are necessary in scientific work.

          Single-payer, single-payer, single-payer, single-payer.

          by Night Train on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:58:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  science and teaching (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I work in academia and while most people I know would regard research as their primary job and teaching as secondary I have encountered very few faculty who have 'little to no' teaching responsibilities.  The exceptions, in my experience, are mostly people who go into upper administration or the very few at the peak of the their field who get endowed chairs or similar positions.  And even some of those, who don't have to teach, do some teaching because they want to.

        In my field there would be very few research scientists outside of universities (museum curators) but that might be different in other areas such as medical research

    •  depends on what you are teaching (7+ / 0-)

      in general, I have found heaviest concentration of Republicans among phys ed teachers, and fewest among science teacher.  In social studies, my field, we tilt Democratic and liberal, but as an example yesterday I was talking with a department chair from another building who is a staunch Republican and somehow managed to get in how badly he thinks Obama is hurting the nation.  

      It would be interesting to see how the distribution has changed over the past few decades, say since Reagan's election.   My sense is that there used to be a discrepancy, but not 55-6,  perhaps 35-25 or 40-20.  As the Republican party as either aligned itself with the religious right or been in large part taken over by it (chicken v egg argument in my opinion) I think increasingly we have seen those of a scientific bent abandon the Republican party.

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:05:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  why do you think they want to... (6+ / 0-)

      ....defund public schools, make college unaffordable except to the elite, and support home-schooling...?

      Yep, they know.

      •  Please leave home schooling out of it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There are plenty of us liberals who do it (or did it, like this parent of a now UC Berkeley senior).

        Silvio Levy

        •  Home schooling needs to be strictly regulated (0+ / 0-)

          Parents should not be permitted to brainwash their children. It's about childrens' rights as separate persons with their own interests. Of course there are great parents who give their children the best education, but we need regulation to check the bad ones.

          Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

          by Joe B on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:42:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sorry, but on this you are wrong (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy, samanthab

            parents have an absolute right to alternative schooling, including home schooling.  So long as the child is not physically abused, the state has little to say about it.  

            And as noted, there are many progressives/liberals who choose to home school for reasons very different than some of those who are extreme in their religion as well as their politics.

            That is an entirely separate issue than what we are discussing.

            When my course was taught in 9th grade, I would occasionaly get students for whom ours was the first public or formal school in which they had ever been.  And of the perhaps dozen or so I had, they spanned the spectrum politically.  

            do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

            by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:50:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  here's why I am suspicious (0+ / 0-)

              and why I'm asking teacher ken.

              Teaching is a skill, just as the subect matter is a skill.  One does not become a teacher by walking in off the street any more than one becomes a dentist.  Don't you think there is a good reason to have requirements of those who teach young people?

              I realize that legally there's an absolute right of parents to educate, but I don't think there should be.  I believe the child has rights to a good education that must be balanced with that right.

              I see this as analogous to the right to faith healing.  The child also has a right to not be sick that greatly outweighs the parents right to practice their religion.

              I have a first grader and a third grader, by the way, and I love my public schools, just as I loved the ones I went to, so that obviously colors my view.

              "Don't go dragging reality into this." - Troubadour

              by Guinho on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:18:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  apples and oranges make fruit salad (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                teaching a classroom with diverse backgrounds and abilities is far different than teaching one or two children with whom one has an ongoing relationship.

                Parents have the primary responsibility for their children, including their education.  They have a right to opt for a non-public education at their own expense, or even to teach their children themselves.  Now, some states may want to try tor require a minimum educational background for the parent who homeschools, but I strongly doubt that such a requirement would be found constitutional.

                Where I conflict with homeschoolers is when they want to have their children allowed to participate in activities at school such as athetics, dramatics and music.  In our system, the child must have a certain GPA and fail no courses to be eligible.  There becomes real issues of eligibility, and of partial participation - in the extra curricular activities and not the academic ones.  This issue is resolved in different ways depending upon applicable state law.

                While you see it as analogous to the medical situation, so far the courts do not agree with you.  

                do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

                by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:26:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The courts are wrong. Intellectual... (0+ / 0-)

                  development is as important to a child as physical health and well-being. It is a human right.

                  •  the issue is constitutional (0+ / 0-)

                    as far as the rights of the parents.  You seem to want to ignore that to impose what you think is correct - in that you unfortunately are arguing in a fashion not this dissimilar from some of the wingers.

                    do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

                    by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:27:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think that's debatable. (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't think the Constitution necessarily guarantees that parents can shield their children from any and all outside influences. It does permit the free exercise of their religion, but is it interfering with people's religion to say that they have to include the viewpoint that racism is wrong (for example), even if they don't agree with that and also get to teach that it's fine?

                      •  your debate is not with me (0+ / 0-)

                        it is with the Courts, going back to Pierce v Society of Sisters,  268 U.S. 510 ( 1925)

                        do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

                        by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:42:56 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Like I said, I think the courts are wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                          They have been wrong many times in our history.

                          I don't just accept their reasoning as is; I come to my own conclusions.

                          •  rights are mobile. (0+ / 0-)

                            I suppose, I agree with you both here, first in that the courts have recognized the one right, but not the other.  HOwever, that citation is from 1925, (although I'm sure it's been reviewed more recently), and our views of rights have changed since then.  that was a pre-new deal court, which has a much less expansive vision of the role of the state's interests in reviewing laws.  I'd bet you that if that were the most recent precedent, there'd be a good chance to get the court to adopt a balancing test:  Parent's rights to control eduction (Parenting is still a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny) against the rights of the child and society to a quality education on the other.  that might rise to the level of compelling state interest that could form the basis of a narrowly tailored, least restrictive means to meet it.  

                            So, my wet-behind-the-ears lawyer take would be that a state would not be able to prohibit homeschooling, but it might be able to enforce some kind of testing standards to ensure that children were not going entirely uneducated.  Hmm.  I wonder how that'd come out.  I could see an activist attorney taking a lifetime's work to get that shifted slightly.

                            That said, your basic sense is that training in teaching is critical for classroom teaching, but that one on one requires less?  Makes sense.

                            Anyway, thanks for the diary.

                            "Don't go dragging reality into this." - Troubadour

                            by Guinho on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:20:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  actually principle in Pierce upheld (0+ / 0-)

                            many times as far as the issue of schooling goes.

                            do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

                            by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:24:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  figures. (0+ / 0-)

                            good to know.  thanks!

                            "Don't go dragging reality into this." - Troubadour

                            by Guinho on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:36:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i'm with you on this. (0+ / 0-)

                            And the minimal standard has to be established in accord with what is needed for an individual to function as an adult citizen in a free society.  Otherwise the child has been effectively crippled.

                            This necessarily includes literacy and numeracy.  But it goes beyond those:

                            For example what if the parents want to raise the kid with the idea that they are only accountable to the laws of God, and that the laws of the land are of no consequence?   Now the kid grows up with the idea that s/he can violate the law at will.  You can see where this gets us.  So one of the minimums has got to be, raising a kid to understand the laws of the land.  

                            BTW that example is hardly as far-fetched as it may sound.  Keyword search "dominionism" and "Joel's army" and follow the trail.  This is not an abstraction, and this is also something that law enforcement is starting to become highly concerned about in the context of domestic terrorism.  

                  •  i'm with you on this. (0+ / 0-)

                    Parents do not have the right to beat their children or cripple their children in obvious and overt ways.  

                    Failing to educate a child in a manner that enables the child to grow up to become an independent and functioning citizen in a free society, is crippling the child.  The wounds are not visible as physical scars, but they are measurable none the less.  

                    And don't even get me started on the neurophysiology: this is demonstrable in terms of the development of the brain, and it can even be seen in mice and rats.  

                •  OK,Ken, let's take it down to minimums. (0+ / 0-)

                  Are you asserting that the court precedents even allow parents to prevent (by act or omisson) their children from receiving any education at all?

                  For example, keep the kid at home and provide zero education whatsoever...?   Thereby keeping the kids illiterate and innumerate...?

                  And here we are not talking about oral-tradition cultures such as many of the First American cultures, where there is an educational process that has evolved over thousands of years.

                  Just: parents who do nothing whatsoever to educate their children.

                  For example, raising a girl to believe that all she needs to know and do in life is cook, clean, and let her husband use her as a baby-making machine.  No reading, writing, arithmetic, or anything other than cooking, cleaning, the missionary position, and total subservience to the husband her father will choose for her.  

                  And what do you believe about that?  

                  Where do the courts believe, and where do you believe, that a child's right to become an adult who is capable of functioning in a free society, supersedes a parent's right to raise a child who is incapable of functioning in a free society?

                  •  the precedents allow for homeschooling (0+ / 0-)

                    and in many states there is no requirement for the parent doing the homeschooling to even be a high school graduate

                    the issue is not what I believe - it is the current legal framework, which some here seem to want to ignore

                    there can be requirements for background checks on people who work with children, either as paid staff or as volunteers under the the supervision of an organization, public or private.  There is from an educational standpoint no such requirement with respect to parents in control of their children.  There a separate legal framework comes into play, which covers issues of abuse - physical and sexual clearly come under that, some forms of emotional MAY but one has to be careful.

                    As far as your paragraph that being "For example" as far as I can tell the answer is that would be acceptable teaching in a homeschooling situation or in a private or religious school.  

                    What I believe is not relevant to the points I was making, and to my mildly objecting to the hijacking of the thread.

                    It is a subject worthy of discussion -  on a thread in a separate diary, and in such a context I might be prepared to share my own viewpoints on the matters you raise.  Not in this thread.

                    do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

                    by teacherken on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 09:23:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  i'm with you on this one. (0+ / 0-)

            Strict regulation of home schooling.

            At minimum the following should be required:  literacy, numeracy, probability and statistics, the Constitution and structure of government and law (the legal environment in which they will live), market-based economics (the economic environment in which they will live), and scientific method (as distinct from the content of scientific theories).  To that I would also add the germ theory of disease, as it relates to basic public health measures and basic personal hygiene.

            The point being, parents do not have the right to cripple their children.  That includes, they do not have the right to render their children incapable of functioning as adults in a free society.  

            Parenthood is about responsibilities as well as rights, and the key responsibility is to equip a child with the basic knowledge needed to function as an adult citizen.  

            The idea that parents have a right to treat children as objects to be molded in their own likeness, is the height of selfishness and egotism on the part of parents; and it ought not be accorded the slightest bit of legitimacy under law.  

      •  Whoa there about home schooling (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        My wife and I home schooled oldest step son because he is high-functioning autistic and it was the best way to deal with his problems, from 8th grade through 12th.

        And the school we pulled him out of was Lutheran. It had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with his inability to cope socially and focus on his studies.

        Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

        by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:29:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, but for every positive example their (0+ / 0-)

          is a horrific one where the child is taught to believe that black people are a different species and the earth is flat. Home schooling needs to be regulated.

          Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

          by Joe B on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:44:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, it doesn't (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Calamity Jean, happymisanthropy

            There is an absolute right - one of the most fundamental - to bring your children up with your beliefs. Even if those beliefs are stupid and wrong and even evil.

            Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

            by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:38:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Totally disagreed. (0+ / 0-)

              Parents don't "own" their children and their children have a right to learn things that they need to know in order to be a functioning member of society even if their parents disagree with them learning those things.

              I agree that human schooling should be regulated much more heavily.

              •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Parents may not own their children, but any time it comes down to society deciding what kids should think, or the parents, I will always vote for the parents. Group-think is far, far, far, far, far (imagine that I type far until I've used up all the bits on Kos's drive) more dangerous than any religion or politics.

                Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

                by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:22:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not advocating "group-think". (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  matching mole

                  I'm advocating requiring that children be exposed to viewpoints other than those of their parents. It's not group-think to expose parents to more different points of view.

                  Is your view of public schools that they are just indoctrination centers where people come out as mindless drones? No. It doesn't work like that.

                  I'm not arguing that homeschooling be outlawed; I'm arguing that it should be regulated.

                  •  But the effect of your regulation (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    would be to decide that some parents needed to expose their kids to different ideas. Guess which parents those would be? Those whose ideas are already different than the bulk of society.

                    And if you don't think schools indoctrinate, think again. Lots of subtle stuff, and then there's the whole peer pressure thing. I lived next door to a Sikh kid once, and he was teased to and past the point of tears about his long hair.

                    Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

                    by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:33:27 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't think schools "indoctrinate", no. (0+ / 0-)

                      I think they INFLUENCE people, but I don't think they cause people to reject everything their parents tell them.

                      I think our fundamental disagreement is that you think parents have a right to WITHHOLD information. I would make a distinction between negative and positive teaching. I think parents have a right to teach their children whatever they want. I don't think they have a right to say "okay, my kid's not going to learn about how the Constitution works, because I don't believe in it". I'm fine with ADDING to the curriculum, but not taking away from the curriculum. I think kids are perfectly capable of interpreting conflicting information, and I think it's their RIGHT to be exposed to conflicting information so that they can learn to do so.

                      •  Indoctrinate versus influence (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

                        Some parents think it is so important that their kids believe X that they don't want anyone to tell them Y, Y being opposed to X. I really think that it their right as parents, and I think we'll lose a lot of intellectual diversity if we force those people to let their kids choose.

                        Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

                        by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:57:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't. (0+ / 0-)

                          How are we going to "lose intellectual diversity" by requiring that kids be taught a larger diversity of things?

                        •  And I should add, out of fairness to you... (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm okay with us losing the type of "intellectual diversity" that promotes know-nothingism, religious fundamentalism, xenophobia, and racism. That stuff contributes nothing worthwhile to society or the world, and we shouldn't create a special privilege of parents to pass on those sorts of values without criticism or challenge.

                    •  toleration of teasing and bullying (0+ / 0-)

                      is negligence on the part of schools.

                      It is another of the logical outcomes of the implicit assumption that children are not people in their own right, which is the core of your own position.  

                      If teasing and bullying were penalized even as strictly as, for example, cusswords in the classroom, those behaviors could be stopped to the point where any exception was practically worthy of a news item.  

            •  OK, Aardvark, let's see where that gets us.... (0+ / 0-)

              Based on what you just said:

              Parents have the right to raise a child with the belief that the laws of the land do not apply to their family.

              Parents have the right to raise a child with the belief that anything someone can get away with is OK.  

              Parents have the right to arrange for a 14-year-old girl to marry a middle-aged man because the man will pay a significant amount of money to the parents for this.  

              Parents have the right to raise a little girl with the belief that upon turning 18, her coming-of-age ceremony is to allow her own father to impregnate her, and then carry the fetus to term.   And if they live in a state with incest laws, that those laws do not apply to their family.  

              Parents have the right to raise a child with the belief that even as an adult, that individual will have to follow the parents' orders in all things large and small, including the willingness to commit crimes if so ordered by their parents.  

              Parents have the right to raise a little boy with the belief that upon turning 18, his coming of age ceremony is to kill a member of a racial minority and escape prosecution.  

              Strictly speaking, in each of those cases, the child upon turning 18, could refuse to go along:  Could decide to be law-abiding.  Could decide to divorce the pedophile that married her at 14.  Could decide to refuse to have sex with her father.  Could decide to refuse the parents' orders to commit or participate in a crime.  Could decide to refuse to murder a minority.  

              But if the parents have been truly successful in doing what you said, which is "bring[ing] the child up with [their] beliefs," the child will believe those things, and will act accordingly.  Regardless of whether those beliefs are, as you said, "stupid, wrong, and even evil."  

              So go ahead, defend your propositions, including their logical consequences.  

              I dare you.  

        •  I think (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TFinSF, blue aardvark

          the comment was more of a generalization of home-schooling, as these studies suggest.

          Parents were asked which of the reasons they homeschooled was the most important reason. Concern about the environment of other schools and to provide religious or moral instruction were the top two most important reasons cited. About a third of students had parents who cited concern about the environment of other schools as their most important reason for homeschooling (31 percent). Approximately another third of homeschooled students had parents who were homeschooling primarily to provide religious or moral instruction (30 percent). Sixteen percent of homeschooled students had parents whose primary reason for homeschooling was dissatisfaction with the academic instruction available at other schools, making this the third most common primary reason for homeschooling.

          " They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

          by djbender on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:50:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So that's only 1/3 (0+ / 0-)

            who are doing it to provide religious instruction.

            Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

            by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:39:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well I guess it depends on (0+ / 0-)

              how the survey results are interpreted.  To me, 1/3 is a lot for a primary reason.  Another 1/3 cited "environment" of the school.  I imagine a percentage of that is an unsafe school and another percentage is racism or not wanting to send your child to a school with a high minority population.  The last 1/3 is dissatisfaction with the academic instruction available at other schools which could mean anything really.  

              " They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

              by djbender on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:22:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  In fact, either of those other two categories... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                "environment", and "academic dissatisfaction" probably includes a lot of people who are also homeschooling for religious reasons. Most people probably do it for a variety of reasons, and a survey like this may give misleading results.

    •  Its all about the money (0+ / 0-)

      Scientists don't get paid all that well considering all the work that goes into becoming a scientist and the large number of hours that scientists work compared to say, business folks.  If your dedicated and smart enough to be a scientist you are dedicated and smart enough to be making a lot more money than a scientist.

      If you are a scientist, generally its because you like the work and don't care that it isn't the best way to get rich.

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:17:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks teacherken (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    texasmom, middleagedhousewife

    From a proud liberal (and sometimes loud) scientist.

    There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated -- NOFX

    by Lupeyg2 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:53:01 AM PDT

  •  The earth is 6000 years old! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freelunch, koNko, phrogge prince, TFinSF

    Deal with it!

    My great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather had a pet velociraptor he sometimes rode to work.

  •  But About That 6% (0+ / 0-)

    I knew a fellow who tried to cause the crash of a small commuter plane because Henry Kissinger, the Queen of England and the KGB were linked in a conspiracy to take over the world.

    He was downright sane compared to the soil scientists here who want to burn down forests because they hate Monsanto..

    Have a great weekend.

    Best,  Terry

  •  Particularly significant b/c apparently they only (0+ / 0-)

    included "hard" sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, that sort of thing. That liberalism dominates in the social and behavioral sciences is much less surprising. I don't know a single conservative in my field.

    An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

    by brainwave on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:00:51 AM PDT

    •  Did they? (0+ / 0-)

      I was looking for such a reference in the study, but all I saw was that they did a random sample of AAAS members.  I don't know how broad the AAAS membership is, but my dad is a social scientist and he has belonged for 30 years.

      Lou Dobbs makes me puke tears of blood (and not the good kind).

      by cardinal on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:14:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A better argument for increasing the number (5+ / 0-)

    of skilled scientists we graduate I cannot imagine.

  •  I'm sure Republicans are relieved... (4+ / 0-)

    They hate scientists!  They're working against the Bible, don'tchaknow, proving the Earth isn't flat and what-not.  No good can come of such heresy!

    I'm surprised they'll even take those ungodly antibiotics and vaccines...

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:08:43 AM PDT

  •  An educated population (14+ / 0-)

    is a Republican'ts worst nightmare.

    Let's bust them up in little pieces so they can't hold us hostage like this.

    by RustyCannon on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:16:44 AM PDT

  •  But of course. (3+ / 0-)

    God hates science and Republicans love god. It's just heathen Democrats who are willing to mock god by brewing up cockamamie theories like evolution. ; )

  •  I worked in a reseatch lab (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    back during the Clinton years.  It was miserable because 2 of the women there were republicans.  One was a faithful Rush Limbough listener. During the Lewinski scandal I would hear them daily bash Clinton.  I couldn't wait to change jobs!
    Where I am now (clinical lab) we don't talk politics.  But the majority of us supported Obama.

  •  Wouldn't this be reflective of a generational (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    shift of the post-Sputnik crowd retiring?

    Excellence is to do a common thing in an uncommon way. Booker T. Washington

    by conlakappa on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:25:03 AM PDT

  •  This poll reassures me that when I'm told (3+ / 0-)

    even liberals can be wrong, I say, "not usually." The truth does indeed "have a liberal bias."

    They tortured people to get a false confession of a link between Saddam and 9-11. Investigate. Prosecute. Incarcerate.

    by Rumarhazzit on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:26:24 AM PDT

  •  Spiro Agnew (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snazzzybird, ajpuckett, blue aardvark

    The anti-intellectual - and, by a not-so-distant association, anti-scientific - edge to the Republican ideology has its roots in Nixon's VP, Spiro Agnew.  Agnew of the "pointy-headed liberals" fame.  My guess is the scientific community was more evenly divided politically before Nixon's administration.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:27:01 AM PDT

  •  Country has anti-science bias (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caelian, koNko

    Looking at the reverse in a way, is the disparity between what scientists and the public believe about things like evolution and global warming.  A piece in today's NY Times reports the results of a survey conducted by AAAS.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:29:48 AM PDT

  •  I always suspected this, thanks Teacheken (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Limelite, fizziks

    I mean, science is based on fact and Conservative ideology is based off of spin. When Hannity says that global warming scientists are being surpressed, he really means there aren't enough of them to make any real noise (because they are FOS)

    Awesome. Facts are fun.


    The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?' - 1984

    by MinistryOfTruth on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:30:03 AM PDT

  •  Phrenologists (4+ / 0-)

    Are exclusively Republican

  •  The reason the public is not liking science (7+ / 0-)

    as much as it used to is directly related to so much science-company bashing. Although I'm extremely liberal, this is one place I differ with many liberals. (Disclaimer: although my screen name is "chemsmith" I've never worked for one of these huge pharmaceutical companies or anything. I have spent about half of my career teaching and half working at small companies.)

    I understand that Monsanto and Lilly and others have not always been upstanding in everything they do, but generally too many powerful libs ignore anything these companies have contributed just to promote everything they do wrong. Isn't there a diarist or two on this site who constantly go nuts writing about the misdeeds of these big companies?

    Until liberals stop joining conservatives in bashing science, this unfortunate anti-science trend will continue.

    Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

    by chemsmith on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:36:06 AM PDT

  •  "Facts have a well known liberal bias" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur, Fixed Point Theorem
    - Stephen Colbert

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:37:59 AM PDT

  •  Creation Science doesn't count. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal, LeftyAce

    I'm sure the real figures are significantly lower once you factor that in.

  •  The Sociopathic 6% (4+ / 0-)

    That 6% figure pretty much squares with the estimate by Mental Health professionals regarding the percentage of the general poplation that displays signs of sociopathic, narcissistic or borderline personality disorders.

    I am so surprised. Yawn. Who knew?!

    "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

    by general tso on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:39:18 AM PDT

  •  Not surprising (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gatorcog, happymisanthropy

    especially after the visit to the Creationism museum by a group of Paleontologists recently. Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum

    Sarah Palin: Winner and still 'champeen' of the Iquitarod

    by Vita Brevis on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:43:15 AM PDT

  •  And that 6% is only doing it as an experiment. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe B, LeftyAce, ban nock
  •  I know a lot of people with PhDs (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cardinal, ajpuckett, koNko, Alec82

    I've worked in PhD heavy environments for 20 years.

    And, in most of the places I've worked, I am farther to the right than the average person.  

    Liberals and socialists and  Marxists; Two of my bosses have been Marxists.

    •  The Ph.D. experience turns people left (5+ / 0-)

      You work very hard for many years for not much reward, by the end you're in your late 20s (if you're lucky enough not to be in your 30s), you have no wealth, probably not much savings, and although thanks to govt. funding you don't have to go into debt to get a Ph.D. in the sciences, unlike MDs, scientists generally don't make a great deal of money afterward.

      Furthermore, the unfortunate fact of getting a Ph.D. in the sciences is that a lot of scientific research is conducted on a rather unsustainable, or at least unfortunate model--faculty members depend on a constant stream of graduate students as labor to get any productive research done, so a far greater number of Ph.D.s are trained than the number of available tenure-track faculty positions they could eventually get.

      I'm a Ph.D. student in physics at MIT, almost done, and I know of almost no academic physicists who are GOP, at least none who will openly admit to it. My political views have been on a steady leftward trajectory since I started this program. After all, I would never have had the kind of opportunities for research and higher learning that I do if not for the US govt. Then I hear the GOP describe all govt spending as wasteful spending and preach that anything is worthless that does not make a profit, and that drives me up the wall.

      •  And even worse... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the GOP frequently uses scientific research as a "scapegoat" for supposedly "wasteful" government spending. They LOVE pulling research projects out of context, parading a shallow summary of them in front of their ignorant audiences. That, if possible, pissed me off more than almost anything McCain or Palin said in the campaign, and helped me convince other educated people that McCain wasn't really the "moderate" some of them thought he was.

  •  Many Global Warming Deniers Are Physicists (5+ / 0-)

    Physicists are so comfortable doing thought experiments in their own heads, they often develop very very eccentric beliefs about the outside world in general.

  •  I work with one of those 9% (1+ / 0-)

    that make up the conservative scientist group.  The guy's a stereotypical right wing wacko.  Loves guns.  Thinks all of the country's problems are due to liberals.  Vehemently anti-gay marriage- "WE MUST PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE" (but dude- you're twice divorced!!)  Global warming's a bunch of BS. Thinks Ann Coulter is HOT!

    And yet he lives and works in the Madison, WI area.  This place must drive him INSANE.

    •  multiple marriages and family values (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      just considering Republicans involved in moving for impeachment of Clinton, Newt Gingrich and Bob Barr are both now on 3rd wifes.

      Of course, that may have nothing to do with ideology.  Until this year, Virginia was represented by two men, John Warner and Jim Webb, who not only had served as SecNav, but were both on their 3rd wives.

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:04:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it's inherent in their ideology (0+ / 0-)

        It's just ironic that so many of them seem to have problems with staying married for long.

        The guy I work with though shares the same strong hypocrisy trait common to conservatives though.  He has a daughter from his first marriage.  She's an adult and has at least 3 kids out of wedlock, has a kind of loser boyfriend (I think he's the father of all the kids, but I'm not sure) and is consistently in need of public assistance.  This guy doesn't seem to be too bothered by this, but man- how he rails about all those minorities who take advantage of welfare to just lie around and do nothing all day.

  •  Interesting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    All part of being from the reality based community.

  •  As an ex-Republican scientist I can pinpoint the (18+ / 0-)

    exact moment that they irreversibly lost me. In the mid 80s the Iowa Republican party added a plank to teach creationism in public schools, as science. No way I could associate myself with that, and I went to the Republican headquarters to tell them so. They were totally clueless as to why that was a deal breaker for a scientist.

    •  good for you nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama

      "In England, any man who wears a wig and a sword is ashamed to be illiterate. I believe it is not so in France." Samuel Johnson, per Boswell

      by Mark B on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:29:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  biologist. Who are republicans then? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama

      I'm a postdoctoral biologist in the UofC system.

      The next question to ask would be who the republicans are, if they are underrepresented in certain middle and upper-middle class fields of work. Certainly, there are some wealthy GOP business owners among the upper-middle class.
      But a subtext of this whole thread is that we are proud that scientists are left of center, and that this means disproportionately republican groups likely are less educated. And it is indeed true, many lower-middle class/working class midwesterners are republican, with a paradox that this is supposedly against their best economic interest.

      Are you guys familiar with what the petit bourgeois and the bourgeois are? You don't need to advocate a marxist solution to understand their observations about how these classes function. The real wealthy or top 1% live in coastal California or Connecticut in a few enclaves. The bourgeois is an upper middle class making above $125k, living in Orange County or the best parts of other states, and sympathizing with the wealthy, and striving to believing they are part of it. The bourgeois fill a top 10-15% of necessarily technical tasks to keep society running, and they are allowed to think freely. They run many businesses, are college professors, doctors, lawyers. It isn't in their interests to dramatically change the system. Real wealthy people don't have to work and can live off of stock interest earnings.
         The petit bourgeois are a group of the middle-middle class who receive well-above average wages for working class positions. They are programmed to support the system, and often they don't realize where they really rank. After WWII, the US produced a spectacular number of high paid working class jobs where one earner could afford a house, car, several dependents. There was an explosion in 'leisure class' activities, such as big family vacations to yellowstone in the 1950-80s, among a class that would have been on the farm or suffering under the depression a generation earlier. This group is getting much smaller recently, but there are still a few jobs like plumbing and certain businesses where essentially working class people are getting a high income. If you want to picture the petit bourgeois in the US, visualize families with blue-collar culture out on the road in an RV, hauling some motorbikes or a boat to the lake where they will listen to country music, do waterskiing, and eat hotdogs over the grill. This class is very small in other countries. If the republicans want to keep their numbers up, they should let more service industry workers and recent immigrants join it.

  •  Math Class & WORK. I see budding conservatives (0+ / 0-)

    and independents in my math classes - kids who are sick of kids who are constantly f'ing up learning time because they don't and they won't

    At the Begining of Class:

    have something write with
    have something to write on
    have their homework out
    have their textbook out

    When Class Starts:

    Do work
    STOP Social Side Conversations that interrupt
    STOP Argueing with the teacher about all of the above


    Messages based upon primarily on rights and compassion for fellow humans do NOT resonate as well as too many libs think they should to my future indies and conservadems, in my NOT humble opinion, in part from what these indies and conservadems experienced in school.

    To all you teacher school education researcher types who'll chime in with THE PROBLEM is my classroom management, hence lack of student engagement, hence off task stuendt behavior - I wish they'd FIRE all you worthless parasites.


    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:00:41 AM PDT

    •  Translation, please (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gatorcog, happymisanthropy, Stroszek

      Messages based upon primarily on rights and compassion for fellow humans do NOT resonate as well as too many libs think they should to my future indies and conservadems, in my NOT humble opinion, in part from what these indies and conservadems experienced in school.

      Sarah, is that you?  ;)

      The truth always matters.

      by texasmom on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:04:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think being in class with screw offs affects (0+ / 0-)

        these kids who want to learn and who want to do their work, in that these kids end up NOT too empathtic.  They grow to be adults, they hear the t.v. ads from Dem candidate X about perserving social services blah blah blah cuz people need help blah blah blah cuz it is a human right ... blah blah blah

        and these adults think back to school to the kids who, 4 out of 5 days, were unprepared AND 5 out of 5 days did little or no work ------ and messages of empathy do NOT work.  

        Furthermore - I think social programs sold with messaging that emphasizes the utility and the practicality of helping each other out - I think that kind of messaging would work better.

        I'm NOT trying to justify how fascist lies work or why they work - I think I've hit an explanatino for why they work, however. It ain't nice, but, unless you know the root cause of something its hard to change it.

        WHY do those idiots like palin and raygun get such big crowds?


        Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

        by seabos84 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:13:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sarah, (0+ / 0-)

      is that you?

      Universally despised by all the right people.

      by The Creator on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:46:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you apparantly didn't read my response. you (0+ / 0-)

        apparantly can't deal with any non-drippy happy happy phony seasame street reality - oh well.
        my response was posted 1/2 an hour before your snotty comment.
        no wonder the fascists win so much, our side can't handle much beyone Barney and Mr. Rogers. Grow Up.


        Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

        by seabos84 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:57:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This actually rings somewhat true for me. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I always had a strong sense of "fairness", but I experienced the exact thing you are described all through school until college. A lot of idiots who just chose not to do work hard and are opposed to learning surround smart kids in K-12 school. Actually, Republican politics is very similar to middle-school playground politics in many ways - I've often wondered if they're a bunch of adults who never grew out of that mentality. Anyway, when I was in high school I was attracted to "libertarian" ideology (not so much Rand, as even then I knew she was full of shit, but libertarianism in general). And I think that exactly what you're mentioning influenced me in that way, as ashamed as that makes me feel to think back on it. I saw a lot of losers around me, and so I channeled my fundamental sense of "fairness" into "fairness for me".

      That began to change when I went to college and graduate school and came to respect a much large proportion of the people around me for their unique skills and abilities. Then, being more exposed to poverty opened my eyes further. Now the exact same impulse I have for fairness makes me advocate liberal ideas rather than libertarian ones.

      •  the thugs do an outstanding job of (0+ / 0-)

        finding these resentments and leveraging them.

        It doesn't mean that is ethical or right or noble - but, since all they care about is winning so they can be in charge and steal, ethics ain't an issue.

        And you're right about politics being little better than middle school playground politics. It has fascinated and infuriated me how complete scumbags like Rove and Lee Atewater can keep kicking our asses in elections by being sneaky little lying bullies.

        In my NOt humble opinion, too often the response on our side is like the smarty pants kid who gets the A on the math test - " I showed you! little bully, I'm smart, I'm right, you're wrong!".

        Our side has all the great big tomes and the PROOF that the palins and the rayguns are idiots ...

        and, here we are, even when we're winning, too much of the fight is on their right wing terms.



        Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

        by seabos84 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:47:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well I've seen too many folks here (15+ / 0-)

    saying vaccines cause autism.

    Denial of fact is not limited to Rethugs.

    All my IP addresses have been banned from

    by charliehall on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:02:10 AM PDT

  •  What percentage of artists are Republicans? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eryk, sistersilverwolf


    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

    by Kayakbiker on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:04:39 AM PDT

    •  Psychologist Stephen J. Dollinger (5+ / 0-)

      found that compared to liberals, those endorsing more conservative positions had fewer creative accomplishments, and produced photo essays and drawings that were judged as less creative (although statistically significant, note that the effect sizes weren't huge). Even taking into account the vocabulary and openness to experience of each participant, the results for drawing products and creative behaviors still held up. Interestingly, he also found that those who were more conservative did worse on the vocabulary test and were less open to experience.

      [One explaation] is that conservatives are more inclined to follow convention in general. And of course, convention sounds the death knell for creativity. A related possibility is that the authoritarian and anti-hedonistic aspects of conservatism may cause imagination to be devalued amongst conservatives. It is interesting to note that in support of this hypothesis, Dollinger did find that conservatives in the study scored lower on openness to experience.

      "I welcome death, but not subjugation." --Iranian protest chant

      by Eryk on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:49:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Repressed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Conservatives are awfully repressed people.  Alcohol, sex, science, entertainment, anything creative really.  I remember the quote from Lynne Cheney talking about her husband, "Dick doesn't dance."  

        " They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

        by djbender on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:09:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is interesting: (0+ / 0-)

        And of course, convention sounds the death knell for creativity.

        Visiting the Imperial Palace Museum a decade ago I was struck by just how little the artistic conventions of China had changed over 4,000 years.  Yet, the Chinese do not lack creativity.  I guess that what an observer sees as convention must depend upon each society.

        Distrust of authority should be the first civic duty. - Norman Douglas

        by Fossil on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:38:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Science Challenges Christianity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    texasmom, cybersaur

    and other Abrahamic religions.  

    It is scary to many that a book written 2000 years ago, back when most humans still believed the world was flat and was the center of the universe, might end up disputing the Bible's version of how the world was created, etc.

    2,000+ years ago, they had no clue how the world was formed - they guessed and made a nice story.

    In other words, Science disproves many things in the Bible.  You bet it is scary to the powers that be.

    I grew up in a family where my dad had subscriptions to Science News, Scientific America, etc.  I mean, if we were bored we were expected to go read something "scientific."

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:05:56 AM PDT

    •  I would argue with your dating (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      killjoy, texasmom, gatorcog

      the Hebrew Bible is much more than 2000 years old, the most recent parts certainly dating to at least 150-200 years before that, and some at least another 5-6 centuries earlier.   And no part of the Christian bible is yet 2000 years old, with the earliest datings offered for any part probably being in the late 4th or early 5th decade of the Common Era, and with at least some possibly as late as the beginning of the 2nd Century.

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:10:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Science only threatens God (6+ / 0-)

      if one's idea of God is very narrow.  

      Many people prefer to keep their God small, predictable and manageable.  IMHO, of course.

      The truth always matters.

      by texasmom on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:11:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Think of Francis Collins (5+ / 0-)

        just nominated by Obama to be head of the National Institutes of Health.  He is a geneticist, one of the major figures mapping the human genome, and is a devout Christian who sees no conflict between his belief in God and his work as a scientist.

        do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

        by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:20:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read his book "The language of God" (9+ / 0-)

          It's worth about a 6 on a 1-10 scale. As a theologian, he's a good scientist. As a scientist, he is first rate.

          It is worth noting the following about Dr. Collins:

          1. As a geneticist, he knows all about the DNA and the Darwin
          1. He was working on his PhD in physics when he decided to switch and go into genetics, so he also knows all about the Big Bang
          1. He was raised an atheist and didn't convert until he was well into his study of genetics

          This does not mean any Kossack should convert to be just like Francis. It does mean that the people around here smacking Christians around as idiots need to know there are exceptional exceptions.

          Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

          by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:38:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blue aardvark

            Logical and Spiritual parts of the brain are in two different locations.

            Some people can connect the two and others cannot.

            I am one who sees the "Logical" side to life.  I don't have the God Gene, though I tried and have tried to believe.

            BTW, one of the best DVD sets I ever watched.... Christianity, the first 2,000 years. is a must for all to see (especially the fundamentalist Christians).


            -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

            by MarciaJ720 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:10:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well.... (0+ / 0-)

            I'd put him in a pretty high quality second tier of geneticists, not really in the quieter first rank of folks who developed the methods, actually got to some important genes far ahead of competitors, and opened the way to some others- like David Housman.

            There is a notable conversion rate from atheism to religion which seems to me to have a generational component.  I don't know of statistics, but I would wager that Americans who grew up in the Sixties and Seventies would have a higher rate of that than those who were tweens in the Eighties and Nineties.

      •  That may be true but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        texasmom, MarciaJ720

        I became an atheist in part because of my exposure to science. My concept of God hadn't been as narrow as that of a young-earth creationist Christian fundamentalist, but even so I decided to abandon the belief in God rather than expand it. I don't see why a wider concept of God is necessarily better, but of course I respect those who believe differently than I do.

        Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
        A yam.
        What a Yam!
        And that's all that - A yam.

        by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:46:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And I thank you for that (0+ / 0-)

          respect.  I am one of those who truly do not feel conflict between science and belief  - and sometimes catch hell from both sides. ;)

          The truth always matters.

          by texasmom on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:57:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think there is always the potential for (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            scientific evidence to conflict with beliefs, and not just religious beliefs. This holds for scientific theories as well as other beliefs. The question is, how do we react when these conflicts arise? Do we abandon our beliefs, modify them to fit the new evidence, express skepticism and look for more evidence, or dig our heels in and deny the evidence and refuse to consider it?

            Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
            A yam.
            What a Yam!
            And that's all that - A yam.

            by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:19:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's very true (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Having a musician's soul, I am somehow comforted by the knowledge that the universe(s) is very wide and I am very small.  The connection between all is central to me.

              That does not mean I don't seek and value knowledge, however.  

              The truth always matters.

              by texasmom on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:21:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  It depends on WHY you believe. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If the only reason you believe is because of some variation on the so-called "argument from design", greater exposure to science could easily push you to atheism because it could demonstrate to you that the existence of God is not the only possible explanation for the complexity of the universe. IIRC, Richard Dawkins says he was that way.

    •  Doesn't challenge Jesuits. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      texasmom, koNko, math4barack

      Those are some of the finest science professors around.

      Universally despised by all the right people.

      by The Creator on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:47:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It actually does. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It challenges their theology, not their science. Having known some Jesuits, and discusses science vs. religion at length with them, they tend to just view science and religion as being in separate spheres (with their religious views informing their science). But it doesn't go both ways: they don't allow the science to fully challenge their religious viewpoint. For example - they're fine with suggesting that the world is billions of years old, because they can rationalize a way that that doesn't conflict with their religious views. But suggest that maybe Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, because that's not really, umm, possible, scientifically, and they won't "go there". In other words, they harbor religious viewpoints in areas where there conveniently can be no scientific evidence either way. Often, the Jesuit God is a "God of the gaps".

        So while I respect Jesuits for being good scientists in some cases, I think that they use some of the same sloppy thinking as many other theists in trying to reconcile science and religion, when in some cases they are just irreconcilable. (Note that I make a distinction between religion and theism: I do think science can be reconciled with god-belief, but I don't think it can be reconciled with most organized religion, which encompasses much more as far as specific beliefs than just belief in God.)

      •  Damned right. (0+ / 0-)

        Very rigorous thinkers in a strangely passionate way.

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:44:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not that impressed with their "rigor". (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          They are very rigorous when it comes to science, and how science can reinforce their religious beliefs. They are not so rigorous when it comes to how science might undermine their religious beliefs; they have a bit of a blindspot there.

          I'm not saying this out of ignorance, but out of having had conservations with several of them on exactly this same topic, and having read a book written by a Jesuit on this topic.

          •  And, I should add... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            when I was a smartass in high school I asked a Jesuit point-blank whether any scientific evidence could convince him that Christianity was not true. He said "absolutely not". So in other words, they privilege religious belief above scientific evidence. They just ignore the religion when they're actually DOING science (methodological naturalism vs. philosophical naturalism).

          •  Yes but ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Creator

            On the way, they often make some very good arguements that don't fail until you get to the end and 98% ain't bad. At the very least, debating a Jesuit is good excercise and potentially humbling in a learning-experience sort of way. More worthwhile than debating Evangelical pushovers.

            I know some self-professed atheists that do a much worse job.

            Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

            by koNko on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:21:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Science doesn't challenge Christianity... (0+ / 0-)

      ...You are confusing a bunch of ignorant right wingers who frame science as a vast left wing conspiracy theory with normal, sane Christians who see science as compatible (and in many cases, complimentary)  to Christianity.

      The problem is many Daily Kos atheists & agnostics think Michelle Bachmann, Brownback & all those type nuts are typical Christians.  

      They aren't.  They are crazy, dangerous extremists who have been inexplicably elected to public office.

      Real Christians find these anti-science nutbags as revolting as any atheist.

      Uighur, please. -(attributed to John Stewart)

      by wyvern on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:19:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  While I don't think that fundies are "typical"... (0+ / 0-)

        Christians, it's nonsense to say that science doesn't challenge Christianity. Of course it does - it challenges MANY aspects of Christianity (though not really belief in God on an abstract level).

        See my comment about the Jesuits above.

        •   Archaeological science... (0+ / 0-)

          ...has strengthen various aspects of Biblical history.  

          Archaeological digs in & around Israel over the centuries have provided invaluable information (as well as confirmation) concerning the accuracy of certain Biblical texts.  

          So here is one example of science not challenging Christianity, but working hand-in-hand with it.

          Other than creationism, where ignorant fundamentalists choose to make a spectacle of themselves, pleace cite more examples of where science "challenges" Christianity.

          Uighur, please. -(attributed to John Stewart)

          by wyvern on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:46:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Think more broadly. (0+ / 0-)

            Category 1:
            Virgin birth - very improbable according to science.
            Resurrection of the dead - improbable according to science.
            Natural effects of God, such as the earthquake that supposedly happened when Jesus died on the cross - in opposition to scientific views.
            Miracles - improbable according to science.

            Category 2:
            Existence of souls - not scientifically falsifiable.
            Existence of an afterlife - not scientifically falsifiable.
            Existence of God - not scientifically falsifiable.

            Category 2 things we can't know for sure, but you have to believe non-scientific things without any evidence to believe in them.

            Category 1 is full of aspects of Christianity that are directly opposed by science. You might argue: well, where is the scientific evidence against those things? Well, we can't gather that now...but scientists could have had they been there. And we know that those things aren't true normally, based on our empirical observation. This is why I say that that is a "God of the gaps" religion.

            •  I'm just glad scientists... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

     not spend an inordinate time trying to dispel catechismic beliefs,  but, instead, wisely invest their time & energy to finding a curing for cancer, reduction of global warming, etc.

              The only place science is at war with Christianity as far as making a concerted effort to expose fundamental Christian beliefs as fraudulent are in the weird minds of loud-mouthed, Al Gore-hating fundamentalists.

              Uighur, please. -(attributed to John Stewart)

              by wyvern on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:39:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Depends what you mean by "science". (0+ / 0-)

                Scientific evidence does make the central Christian story very improbable. Now, I'm sure Christians don't see a problem with that as they see Jesus as a "special case". But that can also easily be viewed as special pleading by assertion.

              •  As a scientist of nearly 40 years, (0+ / 0-)

                I'm going to state something that will probably be very unpopular here and say that I think belief in millenia-old tales for which there is absolutely zero evidence is somewhat toxic in general to ones critical thinking skills. The mind doesn't require such forced compartmentalization.

                It would be far better for society if we rid ourselves of such fantasy and address evidence-based reality in a forthright manner and with an understanding that there is nothing in the universe looking out for us other than our intellects and combined abilities.

                Life isn't a battle between good and evil, it's a battle between signal and noise.

                by ChemBob on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:22:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  When it comes down to it (0+ / 0-)

        Most of the Christians here (and of course Muslims, Jews, etc.) still believe in some pretty crazy shit. I don't understand how anyone who thinks that Jesus died, rose into the sky, and had his flesh regenerate and resurrect 3 days later has any right to laugh at 'fundies'.

        "Haha, I'm slightly less batshit insane than you are" isn't a very catchy rallying call.

      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

        "Science doesn't challenge Christianity"?

        'Cause what I think you mean is that the theory of evolution doesn't challenge Christianity.  Which I assume you believe because you don't believe in a literal Bible, and/or because you recognize that the Bible isn't meant to be a scientific text.  I think you mean "evolution" when you say "science" because that's where most of the heat is.

        But there are other aspects of science, large and small, that do challenge Christianity.  To get right down to brass tacks:  the fundamental tenet of Christianity is that it is possible to be resurrected after death.  The core story of Christianity is that a man named Jesus was tortured by crucifixion, died "for our sins," and after being dead for three days, miraculously came back to life.  Literal bible-believer or no, if you're a Christian you must profess belief in the resurrection story.  But science says it's not possible for a person to die and return to life three days later.

        Hence, science directly challenges Christianity's most fundamental tenet.

        How, other than by ignoring it, do you get around the resurrection story?

        War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders." -- George W. Bush, May 17, 2003

        by Simian on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 02:30:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This poll seems like it could be false. (0+ / 0-)

    6% of scientist consider themselves Republicans?!?! Really, I thought our scientists were better than that. Maybe they were confused and thought they were asking if they were "republicans" not "Republicans." In which case, the percentage of scientists identifying themselves as "Republicans" is probably much lower. Technically as long as we maintain the Constitutional government, we are "republicans."

  •  I think there is also a cultural bias built in (0+ / 0-)

    I work with a lot of brilliant engineers who are Republicans. I think scientists are drawn from one cultural milieu, and engineers from another, although both groups are quite capable of teh math and understanding technology.

    Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

    by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:09:20 AM PDT

  •  did anyone see Olbermann the other nite? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur, koNko, gatorcog, LeftyAce

    The State Senator in AZ who wanted to mine Uranium from the 6000 year old Earth.  Hilarious stuff.

    Stupidity Squared.

    "A lie isn't a side of a story. It's just a lie." The Wire

    by glutz78 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:10:41 AM PDT

  •  sounds right to me (6+ / 0-)

    I've often thought of an analogy to this in universities in general. The right decries the seeming left-wing slant of universities, to the point that people like David Horowitz want to institute "academic bills of rights" to force right-wing view into the classroom (yeah, I know that's slanted, but it's how it looks to me). So are universities left of center? Depends on the discipline. But I've always thought that, maybe they are, and maybe that's an effect of actually devoting yourself to a disciplined and extended study of something, and not taking easy or superficial answers to things. That spills over.

    If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

    by mitumba on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:12:25 AM PDT

  •  GOP needs a name change (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, The Creator

    The Medievalcratic Party

  •  Ken: I always had a gut feeling such was... (0+ / 0-)

    the case:  You have now put that "feeling" in perspective with the facts.  Thank you.

    Have good weekend.

    "Try not to become a man of success, but rather to become a man of value." ~ Albert Einstein

    by LamontCranston on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:20:34 AM PDT

  •  TeacherKen 4 Congress!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    You would get my vote if I lived up North!  You are the bomb-diggity. Like-wise - peace.

    Please visit

    by EAEvans on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:25:37 AM PDT

    •  umm, no - for several reasons (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      math4barack, Alec82

      we are a solidly Dem district.  Longterm Congressman is Jim Moran, and there are people lining up to succeed him, and a couple of whom I know considering challenging him in the next primary, especially if he gets tarred in the investigation of defense contractors that centers on Murtha.

      Second, I am good friends with a number of members of the House, and not just from Virginia.  I would not want their lives

      Third, I am far more valuable doing what I do now, a combination of teaching adolescents and of writing about that and other things as a way of stirring the pot a bit.

      I am 63.  I think I am in my final career.  At least so long as I have the energy and the freedom to teach as I like.

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:45:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It is interesting to note that (6+ / 0-)

    Democrats will see this as self-affirming, exactly as in the diary. Republicans, however, will also see it as self-affirming: see, this proves that we were right about so-called "scientists".

    Greg Shenaut

  •  94% of Scientists (4+ / 0-)

    Aren't morans.

    If culture and religion had ever been immune to change; you'd be reading this in Sumerian Cuneiform.

    by get the red out on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:28:20 AM PDT

  •  Here's a crazy idea... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    teacherken, The Creator

    I'm sure that climate change and creationism have been a big factor in these numbers, but there might be another explanation - the decline of the physical sciences and engineering and the rise of biology.  Thirty years ago the big money was in projects funded by the military -DOD/DOE.  All of that ended with the cold war and most of the Dr. Strangelove types (e.g. Edward Teller) were pretty much done.

    Just a theory, something for discussion, but I really do think that the emphasis on life sciences has changed things.

    P.S. my background is in Physics/Engineering.

  •  I teach Science in a predominantly Republican ... (9+ / 0-)

    neighborhood. Along with 3 other liberal/dem. science teahcers. I've gotten some pretty crazy feedback from parents when I discuss how larger atoms are created from the intense temps and pressures as stars implode/explode (and we're made of these atoms - which are billions of years old). One parent came to school to complain so we had a 3 way meeting with the principal. The parent asked me if I was a liberal and a democrat. I proudly said yes to both. This caught the principal (also a liberal) a bit off guard. When the parent then asked if I also taught Creationism along side of evolution I said "I don't teach make-believe science". This prompted the principal to end the meeting.

    I don't teach the theory of evolution in school. I teach it as fact. Being that I teach 7th and 8th grade I get a few kids asking me if I believe in God. I basically say that this is Science and not church - respectfully. I invite them to stay after school if they'd like to question me about my religious beliefs. So far very few students bother to come in after school for this reason. I've come to realize that pretty much most people who ask me if I'm religious don't give a shit whether I am or not. They mainly do so to place themselves "holier than thou" (as if someone who believes in God is better than someone who doesn't).

    I didn't choose not to believe in a supernatural being. I just plain don't (and see no reason why I should). And, I believe in being honest. I have a lot of respect for the unknown - but no fear of it.

    •  Your courage and self-confidence is admirable. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Creator

      I know a few honest conservatives who would respect you for it.

      Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
      A yam.
      What a Yam!
      And that's all that - A yam.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:36:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Me too... Not all of my close friends are .... (2+ / 0-)

        liberals. We have a lot in common - apart from politics and religion.

        I've just reached a point where I respect actions more than rhetoric. If someone gets really pissy in a discussion about religion I tell them I think it is a form of mental illness (in these people's cases it likely is). This usually ends the conversation.

        Religion is fine. My folks are both pretty religious. But, they've never pushed it and allowed both my sister and I to make up our own minds. My folks never used religion to make a point or to put 'the fear of God' into us. I'm irked by people who do and, if confronted directly in this fashion, I may very well speak my mind - depends on the situation.

        •  One thing I should state.... (3+ / 0-)

          is that when I am asked out of class about religion by students I tell them that I keep religion and science separate - that to try to combine the two just does not work for me. I tell them that I don't let my religious beliefs interfere with how science is conducted or with the results that come from proper and thorough scientific investigation. I have gone farther and basically told them that they'll likely struggle with their own religious beliefs - maybe even throughout their lives. I do my best not to influence them in this regard and I've only told one or two in 21 years of teaching that I do not have any religious beliefs. I do my best not to come off to students as being negative or positive about religion. I just try to set a good example as being human - humanistic - without any preaching.

          •  Of course when you tell your students (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fixed Point Theorem

            that there doesn't need to be a conflict between religion and science, you may find that some of them don't believe you. I didn't become an atheist because any teacher told me that religion and science were incompatible, but rather in spite of the fact that they told me the opposite.

            Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
            A yam.
            What a Yam!
            And that's all that - A yam.

            by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:46:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Medical professions are moving D fast. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eryk, The Creator

    It used to be rare to find a Democratic Physician, Dentist, or Pharmacist.
    Between increasing gender equity and the realization that the private sector has failed in providing care for many, the trend is to Democrats in these fields.

    Contrary to some popular perception, most of us in the health care fields go into them because we care for people and want to relieve pain and suffering. And we value all life, not just zygotes and fetuses.

    On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord" President Barack Obama 1/20/2009

    by UndercoverRxer on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:35:20 AM PDT

  •  Repubs have completely alienated the intel- (5+ / 0-)

    ligentsia of this country--this study underscores that fact. They would do better, in attempting to recoup, to acknowledge the fact that the world is round (etc.) than to try to learn hiphop.

    Of course, as my snarkity wife says--"That explains it! How can they be objective if they're all Democrats!"  

    "The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil." Albert Einstein, "Why Socialism?"

    by Matthew Detroit on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:36:02 AM PDT

  •  Not surprised. Commie globalist elitist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    one world unpatriotic scientists will always hate ordinary conservative Americans and their beliefs.

    Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

    by Joe B on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:36:23 AM PDT

  •  Greed and ignorance. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They need each other. That's why so much money is donated to institutions that teach this creationist crap, which is then used to convince many of the poor to vote against their own best interests.
    Greed and ignorance, they rely on each other.

  •  you have to have an open mind to be a scientist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caelian, last starfighter

    I'm surprised 6% consider themselves conservatives. Who do the pollsters consider scientists? hard science? political science?

    Mr. President, I realize you've got a lot on your plate, but we've been starving at the back of the line. Please throw us a few crumbs like ending DADT & DO

    by tnichlsn on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:38:23 AM PDT

  •  Science, in it's essense, is the search for truth (3+ / 0-)

    It is based on finding what is provable by hypothesis and testing, not proving what is unprovable by challenges to faith.

    On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord" President Barack Obama 1/20/2009

    by UndercoverRxer on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:39:39 AM PDT

  •  4 out of 5 dentists agree (6+ / 0-)

    that 1 out of 5 dentists is an idiot.

    and, apparently, 6 out of 100 scientists

    Follow me @

    by PeaceNerd on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:44:02 AM PDT

  •  6%! That many are R's?! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    there but for fortune

    seems kinda high ;)

    "instead of believing in science, we believe in crazy hokus pokus. It's like Kansas" -Prof. Farnsworth

    by last starfighter on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:45:53 AM PDT

  •  diarist, get out of here... (5+ / 0-)

    with your fancy "facts" and "statistics"!  That 6% number is completely meaningless.  We don't need a special study to know what's what.  That's what we have the Bible for.

  •  Fantastic find (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    thanks for this diary!

  •  Further proof that facts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    have a liberal bias.

    Also, since a majority of scientists are non-believers, the Republicans can use this to justify calling the Democrats "the godless party."  Or whatever.

    I finally put in a signature!

    by Boris Godunov on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:03:31 AM PDT

  •  Simple explanation (yours !) is the best: (0+ / 0-)

    Too many Republicans are

     deny global warming and/or its human causes

     deny evolution

     are young earth creationists

     reject any science that might show liability for corporations on
        water pollution

        air pollution

        health affects of dietary fat

        health affects of tobacco

    Somehow, I seem to be around more of them than I should in mathematics.

  •  By definition... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem

    conservatives do not like change.  Knowledge is change.  Ergo, they hate knowledge.  I've noticed the same distribution of D and R and the "hard" sciences, like physics and chemistry, and in the engineering fraternity, and medicine.  In these groups, nature (and formulas) is unchanging, and all knowledge comes from books.  They have no historical perspective as part of their thinking.  The history or source of an atom has no impact on its future behavior.  But in biology and geology, the history of a component or unit (minerals, rocks, or species) is critical to what happens in the future.  Thank you teacherken for another informative diary.

  •  Obama's head of NIH is evangelical Christian (0+ / 0-)

    Reconciling religion to science is a near impossible task and that is essentially the Democratic/Republican break down for scientists. Francis Collins, Obama's choice to head NIH, has written books on reconciling his religion to science. Reconciling being a Republican to science requires the same suspension of critical thinking.

    Collins may be more widely known for his 2007 best-selling book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." Collins also received a Christianity Today's Book Award in 2007 for his book The Language of God: 'A Scientist Presents Eviden

    GOP is religious which means it is, by nature, anti-science.  That anti-science also works for the GOP's corporate side.  Reagan/GOP denial of the AIDS crisis early on and blocking of Federal response at NIH, CDC etc. leading to the deaths of millions.

    •  Don't buy it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I have known excellent scientists who were seriously practicing Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. Some Orthodox Christians as well but don't think they were seriously practicing.

      All of them had no trouble reconciling their religion with their science. They didn't really see the two as relating to the same aspects of their lives and so were never in conflict.

      I will also note that C. Everett Koop, the evangelical Reagan era Surgeon General was excellent on the issue of AIDS back when the epidemic first began. Again, his personal religion did not get in the way of his being a good doctor.

      As for Collins, I don't know enough about him even if he is in a related field as I am. I know our new Energy Secretary seems an ideal choice, so I have some faith, if you will, that Collins will be a good choice. But I should look into it more.

  •  Many doctors are republican. (at least in TX). nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  just wait: the wingnuts will soon be touting (0+ / 0-)

    this result as proof that science is a liberal plot to destroy America and family values.  

  •  and it's a special microscope the 6 percenters (0+ / 0-)

    use to view themselves!

    "There's been a little complication with my complication"

    by dash888 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:19:48 AM PDT

  •  Duh! (0+ / 0-)

    After all repubs, true to their fundamentalist and luddite roots have waged a war on science.

    Yet, I do not see the clear affirmation and restitution of balance that I would expect from a Democratic congress and administration.

    Reinstating the OTA.

    Eliminating the Data Quality Act

    Unless we have these two, junk science still holds sway in congress.

    Distrust of authority should be the first civic duty. - Norman Douglas

    by Fossil on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:25:03 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, i don't get into a whole lot of (0+ / 0-)

    political arguments here in the lab - even in Utah!!! even with the LDS members of the faculty. this sounds about right.

    "there's a bailout coming but it's not for me!" Neil Young

    by UTvoter on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:33:44 AM PDT

  •  "Science flies you to the moon. . .Religion. . . (0+ / 0-)

    flies you into buildings"

    Republicans Suck Like A Hoover

    by BaritoneWoman on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:34:27 AM PDT

  •  Why that many? (0+ / 0-)

    I'd like to find out why 6% of scientists support the party which attacks science for studying global warming and evolution.

    "I'm not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." -- Obama in 2002

    by Frank Palmer on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:36:56 AM PDT

  •  6% that's too high! (0+ / 0-)

    I am wondering who those are :)

  •  Gee that about covers most margins of error (nt) (0+ / 0-)

    They only call it "Class War" when we fight back. (via Buhdydharma)

    by Detroit Mark on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:43:07 AM PDT

  •  I'd love to see a hstorical (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    distribution. I bet the number of GOP scientists went down with the rise of the religious right's grip on the GOP.

    The Amber Spyglass, by Philip Pullman, is an atheist's manifesto.

    by coigue on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:43:48 AM PDT

  •  This just in: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem

    94% of scientists have functioning gray matter between the ears.

    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

    by lockewasright on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:47:54 AM PDT

  •  The 6% who belive in Intelligent Design ? (0+ / 0-)

    And putz around in "free market economics" ?

  •  When GOP policy arguments became faith based, (0+ / 0-)

    it became difficult for any rational scientist to be a republican.  Science embraces the empirical and rejects unsubstantiated faiytales.

    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

    by lockewasright on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:52:27 AM PDT

  •  can't believe diarist missed most important (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet, Fixed Point Theorem

    part of the survey:

    [Occupations that] Contribute "a lot" to a society's well-being:

    Teachers    77%
    Scientists   70%

    •  I didn't miss anything (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      condorcet, Fixed Point Theorem

      please note the following:  

      There is a lot more in this piece, but I want to focus on the partisan breakout in the chart above.

      While you might choose to focus on different data from the story, the fact that I did not in no way indicates that I missed it.

      Any more that I would say that you missed in the table from which you quote that the military is rated highly by 84%, while journalists by only 34% and business leaders by 21%

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:57:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm Guessing (0+ / 0-)

    That the 6 % work for Oil/Chemical companies or the Tobacco Institute.  Waddayathink?

    "We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart." - Blaise Pascal

    by Dixie Liberal on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:53:09 AM PDT

  •  Science has a liberal bias (0+ / 0-)

    Logic has a liberal bias
    Experience has a liberal bias
    Passion has a liberal bias
    Intelligence has a liberal bias
    Love has a liberal bias
    Knowledge has a liberal bias

    The well-known phenomena of pshychological projection and confirmation bias account for 198% of conservative so-called 'ideas'

    by power2truth on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:56:15 AM PDT

  •  Stepping on the lead -- changes over time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jane Lew

    I'm not surprised by these figures.  But I'd guess (based upon doing a master's degree at an engineering school) that these figures are historic lows, and that the poll hides a lot of former Republicans.

    This was missing from the Pew study.  There's no baseline, and no trend lines.

    I'm guessing that a generation ago it was a lot more even.  And that except for a small number of evangelicals (and maybe Orthodox Jews), the science community has  essentially abandoned the GOP in the last 20 years.

    "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

    by mbayrob on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:58:18 AM PDT

  •  great read (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the diary. No surprises here. Seeing olbermann cover that congresswomen saying the earth is 6000 yrs old and we need more uranium enriching absent of environmental reglation....takes the cake.  

    The article is well worth the read if anyone didnt read it. Ive got some emailing to do :)

  •  6% probably hit the wrong button (0+ / 0-)

    When I see something like this, I always wonder what percent of that 6% (or whatever number it is) is actually statistical noise / sampling error.  It very well could be significatly less than that, more like 2%.  Surely, some of the people who respond to these things answer the questions incorrectly or don't understand, etc.  That is taken into consideration in the margin of error, but still.

  •  Most GOP Scientists I know... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jane Lew

    ...are fiscal conservatives and somewhat embarassed as of late, more like old time John Chaffee and his ilk.

    Enterik, progressive democratic scientist

    (-9,-9) pragmatic incrementalist :-P

    by Enterik on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:20:22 AM PDT

  •  Science has a liberal bias (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jane Lew
  •  grad school is an economic reason (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem, Jane Lew

    One thing to remember to is that PhD scientists have spent years living at or below the poverty line.  When I was getting my PhD, my institution capped my salary (yes, I'd have had to reimburse one of the richest instituions on the planet) at $15,000 a year living in Boston for six years

    When I of people talking about having to choose between drugs and food and not making ends meet, I know what they are talking about (though I had medical care).  For me I had one month I remember in particular having to cut back on groceries because my car blew a tire and I needednew ones for getting out to my field sites.

    Unlike lawyers or MBAs who can go from parent's wealth, through a relatively well off grad school to more wealth, there's no real need for them to experience this.  (I'm a law student now).

    "Don't go dragging reality into this." - Troubadour

    by Guinho on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:25:33 AM PDT

    •  Precisely- scientists went through filter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I have the same experience. After 7 years of grad school (making $13000/yr, with tuition/health covered due to working as a teaching assistant for 20 hrs/week), I make $40k as a postdoc in California. Due to the state cuts, they want to uniformly cut everyone's wage 8% rather than doing layoffs for UC, and 4% cut if you make under $45k. So I will be earning $36k as a 33 year old next year. Studio apartments near UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, UC Santa Cruz are all very expensive, and basically start at $1000/month, so I'm living with three younger roommates and paying $950 a month (seriously, one of the better deals I could find) because there is a good chance I will have several months of not having a job after this position ends. The others gripe about paying over half their pay for a $1500 1-bedroom because they had a baby and can't make ends meet. While other people have kids in their late 20s and are moving up a salary ladder, scientists have to come from a class with the privilege of living like this for several years.
        I love what I do- being a marine biologist is one of those unrealistic dream jobs such as musician or artist that people might like to take. I would say that more than half of the other postdocs, especially the ones with good publication records to land professor jobs, come from families with one or two professors as parents. A few clearly come from otherwise well off families, and were given money to already purchase a condomiunium and constantly travel to Asia or south America for vacation.

      Being a scientist implies graduate school - not that someone was a chemistry major as an undergraduate. The group of people who currently are scientists are not just those with merit or interest - you had to be able to live w/o good money.

    •  You contradict yourself. (0+ / 0-)

      Unlike lawyers or MBAs who can go from parent's wealth, through a relatively well off grad school to more wealth

       Here you imply that all those going to law or business schools are wealthy.
       Then you say you're going to law school now.  So are you wealthy?  If not, then you're admitting that in fact people who do not come from wealthy backgrounds attend law and business schools.
       Bigotry and false characterizations don't serve the left well.  We're supposed to be better than conservatives in that regard.

       My father was one of those low paid, liberal scientists.  He worked at a state university.  But he was a liberal before he became a scientist.
       I went to business school.  I was a liberal before, and I'm still a liberal.

      My Karma just ran over your Dogma

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:10:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oh please.. (0+ / 0-)

        If it sounded like I was trying to propagate a gross generalization, then I clearly mispoke.  

        I said they can do that, not that they all do.   Certainly, I have a lot more collegues who are in their early twenties and come in driving their parent's luxury car and leave driving their own once they land the law firm job.  (my own version is a prius which I will be converting to plug in....) Now, those folks were entirely absent from grad school.

        Of course, there's another dynamic at work here:

        Perhaps another way of putting this is like this:  People who are interested purely in money, and do not care about broader ideas or larger issues go into business, law, and often medicine.  They do not go into studying marine biology or plant ecology.  

        now, if you go through a PhD program, you have no choice but to be confronted with what it's like to live on WalMart wages.  If you play it right in law school, you can breeze through your entire professional life without ever having had that experience.  that's all I'm saying, really.

        Now, some disclaimers which are warranted (by way of agreeing with FFDAR) Where I go to law school, there are also a large number of are former organic farmers, political activists, intellectuals, and artisanal bakers, just to mention the backgrounds of my closest friends.  Also, there are those who come in gunning for a top law firm job and a partner's salary, then sign up for the death penalty clinic on a whim and then graduate to become public defenders (I know one of those too).  Also, I do energy law, which brings me in contact with a HUGE number of awesome public interst MBA students too, so the MBA world is not uniform either.

        All those great ACLU and NRDC attorneys obviously went to law school too, and the visionaries who start plug-in-hybrid conversion businesses and solar power companies often are MBA folks, too.  However, students concerned with larger issues than their post graduation salaries make up a relatively smaller proportion of law students or business students than PhD students, that's all.  

        so, my original point is that there are going to be proportionately more republican elitist types in the ranks of MBA and JD programs than PhD, not to imply that their 100%like that.  I'd say roughly 50%, really.

        "Don't go dragging reality into this." - Troubadour

        by Guinho on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:08:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Gotta ask... how many of those are torture... (0+ / 0-)

    psychologists? What is the breakdown between "hard" scientists and "soft" scientists? I have to think that the more subjective the science, the more room for reality challenged R's to prosper. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean one can't hold opinions and beliefs not subject to scientific analysis - it just means I wonder if there's a correlation.

    Republicanism in a nutshell: "Mine!" and "No!" - any toddler

    by DancinMan on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:28:10 AM PDT

  •  I work with a lot of folks in the life sciences (0+ / 0-)

    and almost all are liberal to left, if they're American or European. One or two new immigrant Russians who are odd libertarian types... money's the reason,  really, they're pretty blunt about it.

    Even the very religious are left. At least in the life sciences. Far more women too.

    •  do you all talk politics at work? I can't (0+ / 0-)

      I'm in biology. I had a coworker from Colombia who hated Obama for making a statement about human rights in Colombia and would send around emails against him before the election. He supported Clinton through. He didn't like leftist movements in south america, and also once made some sort of statement about climate change. One of the computer staff in the building has voiced issues about anthropogenic climate change.
        One of my collaborators is in a family with someone, without saying his name, who was very prominent in the Nixon administration. He was a liberal republican who was very effective in getting things done (as many liberal republicans or blue dog democrats are - because you have to bribe them to pass votes). I've never wanted to even bring up politics because she could be either a democrat or a very stealthy republican who doesn't give off the vibe.

      •  We do surprisingly. (0+ / 0-)

        We're mostly women. During the election everyone, save the Russians who thought he'd give all the money away, were for Obama. Very predictable liberal positions. The guys had some libertarian leanings here or there. But this is the East Bay.

  •  Not a big surprise :) (0+ / 0-)

    But thanks for the info.  Now I have proof!

  •  and we'll still wonder (0+ / 0-)

    why the Rupublicans continue to doubt scientists. If 94% of 'scientists' were Republicans, then Climate Change would be utter BS.

  •  New book on increasing science illiteracy - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:14:39 AM PDT

    •  UC sued for saying evolution/religion compatible (0+ / 0-)

      Have you heard about the (unsuccessful) lawsuit against UC Berkeley paleontology department which had an extensive public-science website explaining principles of evolution, examples of extinct species such as large dinosaurs and so forth.
       The lawsuit was over a section about religion and evolution, and describing world religions and religious figures who claim there is no incompatibility between spirituality and observations of evolutionary processes (this would include the pope). It was really silly. People in the history department can refer to principles of world religions without being regarding as advocating the point.

      Here is a description:
      Discovery institute still miffed

      •  yes, I read about it several months ago. (0+ / 0-)

        Since my dad was a graduate of, and then professor with the UC system, I thought it was a particularly assinine lawsuit, especially because it had already been tossed out of one court.

        My Karma just ran over your Dogma

        by FoundingFatherDAR on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 01:05:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I discovered that paradigm in the 8th grade... (0+ / 0-)

    when my Lutheran principle/teacher handed me a C- on a science paper because I didn't state that Evolution was an unproven and false theory while Creation was god's spoken truth. A decent science paper those parameters do not make.

    While not the definitive reason, it was certainly a contributing factor to my later leaving Christianity behind entirely.

    "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill

    by impjinks on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:17:00 AM PDT

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    But, of course, this will only give the right-wingers additional fuel for their global warming denial argument:

    You see?? Of COURSE scientists are going to claim that 'global warming' is caused by humans!!! It is all part of their left-wing political bias!!!!!

    I don't have "issues". I have a full subscription!

    by GayIthacan on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:17:43 AM PDT

  •  I had recalled a study showing that the more..... (0+ / 0-)

    education one has the more one is likely to be a democrat commenting in a different diary and someone linked me to the study.  Unfortunately my memory fails me again.  Anyone know about the study?

  •  Thanks for this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    These findings are only logical; a party that is broadly anti-science and anti-education isn't likely to produce many scientists, apart from a few hacks who do so specifically to then preach against the science as "qualified" specialists.

    "They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time. [...] That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary." -Handmaid's Tale

    by Cenobyte on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:38:55 AM PDT

  •  Good to see that (0+ / 0-)

    but it sure stands to reason (no pun intended), that the more open one's mind (scientist or not) the more Liberal one would be...

    Thnx for the stats-

    "Liberalism is the supreme form of generosity; it is the right which the majority concedes to minorities and hence it is the noblest cry that has ever resounded on this planet." -Jose Ortega y Gasset

    Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

    by valadon on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:55:45 AM PDT

  •  Interesting how religion serves the powerful. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Religion has always been the tool of the ruling class.  The GOP is the party of religion in the US. It also is the party of corporate interest over public interest.

    The interests of both corporations and religion are opposed by science.  

    •  actually not always true historically (0+ / 0-)

      in its origins, and throughout much of its history, Christianity has had a real concern for the poor and suffering.

      Similar trends exist within Judaism and Buddhism.

      And Charity is one of the requirements of Islam.

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:06:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You relate the talk but religion fails the walk. (0+ / 0-)

        Some Christians (like some Muslims or Jews) may have had "real concern" for the poor but the religions do not and have always been the tools of the state to rule.

        Science is always the enemy of religion.

        •  you paint with far too broad a brush (0+ / 0-)

          it is far more than "some" as you posit it.  I will make a flat statement which might consider insulting, but too bad -  historically you are flat out wrong.

          do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

          by teacherken on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:25:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  History does the painting. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Religions have been overwhelmingly bad actors particularly in regard to science.

            US was founded as a refuge from religion where science, not religious doctrine ruled.

            The Dark Ages = religious rule.
            The Enlightenment = science rules.

            •  I think that's true in the sense (0+ / 0-)

              that even though in theory the basic tenets of religious groups are meant to give consideration to the poor through acts of charity etc, and to consider the "public interest", that quite often the practice of particular religions has not always been in keeping with those principles.

              We'd have to distinguish the difference between the organizing structure of some religions as a basis for power, wealth and control over people (in the same manner that the State might also function), and the faith of individuals who comprise the congregations of religious practice.

              Therefore, it can be true that religion may be a scourge upon mankind as it is practiced, but that individuals might still retain the underlying faith.

              Now, as an Atheist, I have no use for either, but I can certainly see that many people could conceivably be more honest to their faith than religions are in the main. It certainly would also make sense that powerful religious structures would be fearful of losing their authority and their very foundational beliefs to science.

              But we have seen the Catholic church accept some aspects of evolution and science (it's hard to dispute reality), and we have seen a shift in some religious thought. Some can accept science or evolution because they attribute these findings to their god. At least there is some progress.

              Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

              by valadon on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 12:37:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I find it annoying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that wingnuts will avail themselves with all of the technological trappings of the 21st century, iPods, cell phones, computers, etc... all of which we have thanks to the application of rigorous scientific study and methodology, and at the same time be so vehemently anti-science.  They will reject studies on global warming done by people who have devoted their lives studying meteorology, physics, earth sciences - simply because they don't like the conclusions.

    But would they get on a plane that was designed by a good, upstanding christian person who didn't actually study physics, but had a strong moral sense that a plane really doesn't need 2 wings to stay in the air?

    explain how letting gays marry will directly affect your own heterosexual relationship?

    by bluestatesam on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:02:49 AM PDT

    •  tradition vs modernity (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No matter how they struggle against modernity, they are forced to partake of it. Ironic huh? But we could say the same for religion as we do for politics and the state--the two pillars of human society.

      We stand a better chance of influencing the liberality and reasonable governance of the state than we do the former, but both can be subject to narrow-mindedness with respect to science even if they have no choice but to avail themselves of it.

      At least be glad that by having no major choice in the matter, that public opinion will gradually shift away from such regressive thought. And that is not to say that there is no value in tradition, but that the world and the universe are apparently in a constant state of flux, and that change is inevitable. It would, therefore, only seem prudent to think that our minds and our intellects might also evolve to face the challenges of a modern world. (it is futile to resist).


      Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

      by valadon on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:56:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The 6% get on cable news. (0+ / 0-)

    Scientists who deny global warming or don't believe in evolution get to spout off on cable news channels at least 50% of the time the issues are discussed, if not more.  This gives the illusion that 50 percent (or more) are scientists who support the Republican positions.

    That's the fair and balanced policy in the MSM.

    Man is not a rational animal. Man is a rationalization animal.

    by Pacific Blue on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:32:37 AM PDT

  •  Why Are There So Many? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Why would anybody believe in a political party that does not believe in them? 6% is too high.

    "But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Barack Obama

    by Sam James on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:33:19 AM PDT

  •  Einstein was a socialist; all the REALLY bright (0+ / 0-)

    scientists ARE.

    "The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil." Albert Einstein, "Why Socialism?"

    by Matthew Detroit on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:47:20 AM PDT

  •  Brain differences found between Democrats (0+ / 0-)
  •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

    I'm a scientist. My wife is a scientist. Almost everyone we know is a liberal to moderate Democrat with the occasional Green or Independent. Offhand I know of only one conservative Republican I have known from lab. Although I have to say someone who was in the same department I got my Ph.D. from was buddies with the Oklahoma City Bombing crowd, so even among scientists there are some crazies.

    Also, this is largely the Republican's fault, as you point out. Opposing the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming while supporting the pseudo-theory of Creationism is a pretty damned good way to alienate almost all scientists.

    •  issues (0+ / 0-)

      I'm a scientist. I'd say there are plenty in my field who are liberal primarily on social issues (thus they are a democrat), but there are quite a few who aren't savvy to economics and class issues. Lots of scientists aren't necessarily leftists uniformly, on issues across the board.

  •  More believe in global warming than evolution (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Most notably, 87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true.

    And the near consensus among scientists about global warming is not mirrored in the general public. While 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees.

  •  Hahaha- I love this statistic! (0+ / 0-)

    The most intelligent and rational among us..... overwhelmingly reject the wretched ideology of conservatism.

  •  In an amazing coincidence, these scientists (0+ / 0-)

    made the lower 6% of the Bell curve in their grades.  Who knew?

    60 is SUCH a great number.

    by hcc in VA on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 02:38:37 PM PDT

  •  Um, teacherken, it's "effects" not "affects" (0+ / 0-)

    health affects of dietary fat
    health affects of tobacco

  •  Scientists do not allow bullshit opinion to pass (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That's the awful thing about "facts" and "data."

    The peer-review system does not allow stupidity to go unanswered. The system either stops stupidity from being published in the first place, or it is eviscerated later by other scholars.

    As Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact."

    Republican positions are not based on fact. They are simply mantra or religious creeds. Not reality based.

  •  Scientists Deal With Facts (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans speak of their holy beliefs and they are ruled by submission to authority.  They are the heirs to the Catholic church who tortured one of the first scientists, Gallileo.  They are dangerous anachronisms who will eventually join the dinosaurs who they believe walked the earth with humans.  I really can't stand Republicans.

  •  Scientists Seek Facts (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans run from facts.

    Not a lot of overlap.

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 04:36:19 PM PDT

  •  And yet..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mem from somerville

    people on this site condemn scientists who work for corporations to develop pharmaceutical drugs and embrace herbal remedies instead.  

    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

    by murrayewv on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 04:41:54 PM PDT

  •  Yet the more education you have the more (0+ / 0-)

    likely you are to be conservative, until you get to those with graduate degrees who are slightly less conservative than those with bachelor degrees. Has any one seen a survey of how other professions/college majors break down politically?

    Should we allow a private option?

    by Toon on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 04:53:13 PM PDT

  •  Neurophysiology (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A study published in 2007 shows the connection between flexible thinking ability and liberal political views.  Flexible thinking is a required ability for scientists.

    . . .a specific region of the brain’s cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives.

    The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking.


    A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences.


    Some of the traits associated with right-wingers in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression, tolerance of inequality, and lack of complexity in their thinking.

    It may be fun to bash conservatives, but if those unflattering traits are hard wired, it's probably pointless.

    "Give me but one firm spot to stand, and I will move the earth." -- Archimedes

    by Limelite on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 04:58:10 PM PDT

Chris Bowers, JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, Doug in SF, wclathe, ljb, Alma, Terri, TXdem, dwellscho, copithorne, scribeboy, Chi, ogre, copymark, apsmith, Trendar, abarefootboy, mikeb42, tiponeill, mem from somerville, madmsf, mattman, RunawayRose, tnichlsn, dengre, krwada, KumarP, Shockwave, Wintermute, billlaurelMD, mlharges, eeff, Sandy on Signal, freelunch, frisco, dash888, Matilda, bethcf4p, object16, Joe B, MarkInSanFran, Eternal Hope, eyeswideopen, bonddad, nyceve, understandinglife, ehavenot, peace voter, bluesteel, KMc, mkfarkus, vmibran, barath, taonow, JuliaAnn, Ignacio Magaloni, oceanspray, luku, House, exconservative, BruinKid, navajo, dmsilev, Cedwyn, Alna Dem, Boris Godunov, nitetalker, wader, Redfire, JimDev, jackmac, laserbeam, steve04, Matthew Detroit, marko, TexDem, oldjohnbrown, NYC Sophia, Dallasdoc, Miss Jones, DeadB0y, bogdanmi, Nina, texasmom, laughingriver, GreatDane, annetteboardman, kalmoth, Brian82, bwintx, econlibVA, zerelda, tomjones, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Elvis Vader, DarkSyde, Leaves on the Current, rickeagle, vacantlook, Limelite, TexMex, G2geek, bloomer 101, Tarindel, marina, radarlady, rini, pattyp, Treg, capelza, David R, baccaruda, Marching Orders, JanetT in MD, SherwoodB, waitingforvizzini, PBen, ajsuited, eightlivesleft, dewtx, ChemBob, drewfromct, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, eru, majcmb1, Frank Palmer, aaraujo, Kayakbiker, blue jersey mom, SheriffBart, onanyes, SBandini, Marcus Junius Brutus, minidriver, Rydra Wrong, Ginny in CO, neroden, Rusty in PA, Tuba Les, SocioSam, Snud, Land of Enchantment, simplicio, Philpm, Mother Mags, elliott, The Scientific Liberal, Nance, gwilson, snazzzybird, BachFan, tarheelblue, Debbie in ME, The Sinistral, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, cybersaur, Kimball Cross, koNko, kestrel9000, Lefty Coaster, Blue Wind, tecampbell, birdbrain64, gpoutney, cRedd, gatorcog, Bush Bites, Doctor Frog, real world chick, plf515, bleeding heart, MarciaJ720, bsiii, RussTC3, middleagedhousewife, MBNYC, onionjim, ChapiNation386, Cenobyte, blitz boy, zhimbo, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, MrJersey, bstotts, 20shadesofviolet, HGM MA, louise the dog, lemonsieur, AllanTBG, markthshark, mapman, Eryk, Thinking Fella, One Pissed Off Liberal, tonyfv, factbased, out of left field, Loudoun County Dem, randorider, blue armadillo, dmh44, possum, Tailspinterry, Dartagnan, suburi, Positronicus, moosely2006, ddriscoll, DrWolfy, Allogenes, power2truth, Ticonderoga, Unbozo, Strabo, bnasley, vbdietz, Oreo, thursdays child, jnhobbs, millwood, Moderation, hopi13, Rumarhazzit, 2ajpuu, The Red Pen, JML9999, keikekaze, TomP, Empower Ink, rmonroe, BustaVessel, jgilhousen, jwinIL14, MKinTN, FirstValuesThenIssues, Michael91, rogerdaddy, chapter1, mconvente, VelvetElvis, condorcet, Ms Citizen, Phil N DeBlanc, caseymarc4, zerone, lockewasright, Involuntary Exile, nlight, VL Baker, Lujane, NogodsnomastersMary, gildareed, Thought Crime, envwq, mofembot, codairem, Horsefeathers, clew74, matching mole, Cobbler, luckylizard, James Kresnik, BYw, tsunami, Athenocles, there but for fortune, dont think, vacuumslayer, dmhlt 66, angelino, Mike Taylor, immigradvocate, Anjana, mamamarti, legendmn, R Rhino from CT4, FudgeFighter, SciMathGuy, multilee, movingforward, cybrestrike, Sportin Life, Searching for Pericles, sustainable, rejoice, rockwilder, RustyCannon, Stranded Wind, ryan81, Partisan Progressive, h bridges, velvet blasphemy, fearwig, zackamac, followyourbliss, ZilV, DClark4129, lastman, obscuresportsquarterly, deutschluz, Keith Pickering, babeuf, Knarfc, doc superdog, math4barack, Leftcandid, Vita Brevis, Larsstephens, Words In Action, Lazar, YellerDog, winkster, flitedocnm, buffer1, Vacationland, The Jester, amk for obama, Hamsun, jethrock, piers, kjoftherock, stunzeed, wvmom, msmo1918, Nestmaster, Ronald Singleterry, freeport beach PA, atxcats, plankbob, lostmypassword, legalchic, RJP9999, Herse182, mtnlvr, ctlrick, elginblt, ItsSimpleSimon, ebbv, aggie98, sharonsz, Surly Cracker, Actuary4Change, Texnance, impjinks, BasiX, cocinero, CA Berkeley WV, NellaSelim, bicycle Hussein paladin, VitaminD, BrowniesAreGood, renbear, gobears2000, Colorado is the Shiznit, RepTracker, SuperBowlXX, annominous, xgy2, ban nock, atheistben, Hopeful Skeptic, Olon, wahine, Amayi, firemage, the national gadfly, smallgal, nospamthanx, The Creator, Haf2Read, elusive muse, KVoimakas, dakinishir, Prinny Squad, fabina12, lizard people, Dixie Liberal, MRA NY, corvaire, Tm3, MinistryOfTruth, VTCC73, curtisgrahamduff, abetterperson, fayevski, thejoshuablog, Aurelia, Left in NY

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site