This guy sits on the "House Committee on Science, Space and Technology".

[Baked]

That guy isn't a scientist, he's a fucking idiot.

It says so much more about the people who voted him into office.

 

[blankslate]

yaye, another Christian bashing thread

WRONG!

It's an idiot bashing thread. There are Christians who do not have to denigrate science in order to feel more secure about their faith. Then there are the Jesus rode on a dinosaur idiots.

 

[lotus503]

yaye, another Christian bashing thread

Actually it wasn't.

Fuck Christians, now it is.

 

[DCal430]

Actually it wasn't.

Fuck Christians, Muslims, and Jews now it is.

fixed

 

[lotus503]

fixed

My name is lotus and I approve this message.

 

[shira]

He doesn't think, he believes. When he tries to think, it's only to support what he already believes.

That's what makes him a Conservative.

He never "tries to think." He believes that if he ever tries, his head will explode.

 

[Avalon]

This is not isolated to the conservative party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

You've gotta be kidding me...

 

[GoPackGo]

Science and religion don't need to be mutually exclusive. If you read the first few verses of Genesis it sounds like a very simplistic description of The Big Bang. If you look at Genesis 1:11 the Earth brings forth grass, trees, etc. Earth bringing forth could be seen as evolution. I think it's possible this modern era is 6000 years old but how many civilizations have we not discovered because they are buried in the ocean or hidden by jungle? As long as scientists are ethical then there is no reason to doubt their efforts.

 

[RightIsWrong]

If you think that this guy sitting on a Science, Space and Technology Committee is the epitome of ironic (and it is), you haven't even gotten into the half of it:

Nor are Broun’s views radically out of whack with other Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Another member is Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, still dodging flak for saying victims of "legitimate rape" were unlikely to become pregnant because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin is running for the Senate.

Over at Wired, Brandon Keim has run down the list of other views held by House science committee members:

"The committee’s chair, Ralph Hall (R-Texas),' lumps 'global freezing' together with global warming, which he doesn’t believe humans can significantly impact because 'I don’t think we can control what God controls.' Dana Rohrbacher (R-Huntington Beach) thinks cutting down trees reduces levels of greenhouse gases they absorb. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) still trots out the debunked notion that a scientific consensus existed in the 1970s on 'global cooling,' which he portrays as a scare concocted by scientists 'in order to generate funds for their pet projects.' "

If the Republicans ever want to be taken seriously by independents and moderates that would vote for someone who isn't on the far left or far right fringe of their party, they should try to not appoint people to positions that they are so diametrically opposed to being able to fulfill the basic requirements of.

 

[Rainsford]

This is not isolated to the conservative party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

It definitely isn't, although the (more) ridiculous belief that God created us in our present form in the last 10,000 years seems to be held by a majority of Republicans (58%) and only a plurality of Democrats and Independents (41% and 39%, respectively). Which suggests to me that it influences everyone, but it's the Republican position on the issue (which seems to agree with my experience).

Really it's depressingly hard to believe I live in a country where nearly half of the people believe God created humans in their present form in the last 10,000 years while only 15% believe in evolution not involving God. I wonder how much clinging to these beliefs is holding us back as a society and as a species?

 

[Rainsford]

Science and religion don't need to be mutually exclusive. If you read the first few verses of Genesis it sounds like a very simplistic description of The Big Bang. If you look at Genesis 1:11 the Earth brings forth grass, trees, etc. Earth bringing forth could be seen as evolution. I think it's possible this modern era is 6000 years old but how many civilizations have we not discovered because they are buried in the ocean or hidden by jungle? As long as scientists are ethical then there is no reason to doubt their efforts.

I used to think that as well, but the more I thought about it, the more I've come to support the idea that science and religion ARE mutually exclusive. Not because we can't come up with some situation where their respective explanations are compatible (or at least aren't contradictory), but because their underlying methodology is completely different.

Science is about exploring mysteries, gathering evidence, formulating theories and testing those theories. Religion is about coming up with an "answer" to a question that explicitly must be taken on "faith". The idea isn't to find out the real answer, it's to satisfy the person asking the question. Trying to introduce religious beliefs in scientific pursuits is the exact opposite of what science is all about.

 

[Slew Foot]

 

[GoPackGo]

I used to think that as well, but the more I thought about it, the more I've come to support the idea that science and religion ARE mutually exclusive. Not because we can't come up with some situation where their respective explanations are compatible (or at least aren't contradictory), but because their underlying methodology is completely different.

Science is about exploring mysteries, gathering evidence, formulating theories and testing those theories. Religion is about coming up with an "answer" to a question that explicitly must be taken on "faith". The idea isn't to find out the real answer, it's to satisfy the person asking the question. Trying to introduce religious beliefs in scientific pursuits is the exact opposite of what science is all about.

I can understand your point, but it doesn't mean scientists have to be atheists or religious people need to be anti-science.

 

[zinfamous]

I used to think that as well, but the more I thought about it, the more I've come to support the idea that science and religion ARE mutually exclusive. Not because we can't come up with some situation where their respective explanations are compatible (or at least aren't contradictory), but because their underlying methodology is completely different.

Science is about exploring mysteries, gathering evidence, formulating theories and testing those theories. Religion is about coming up with an "answer" to a question that explicitly must be taken on "faith". The idea isn't to find out the real answer, it's to satisfy the person asking the question. Trying to introduce religious beliefs in scientific pursuits is the exact opposite of what science is all about.

It depends on the religion/belief really. There are plenty of faiths in this world that leave ample room for scientific evidence and pursuits that do not stop one from asking questions: even as far as the origins of the Universe, or reasoning for the existence, thereof.

I recently read, in fact, that among developed countries and the majority religions of these countries, the USA is expressly unique in this overwhelming denial of the fact of evolution amongst the self-described religious. actually, it was on AT, someone recently posted a link to an article written by Gould, detailing his invitation a few decades ago to attend a Vatican conference on Science. A seemingly odd marriage, sure, but he found himself approached by several priests and Bishops of various international diocese--mostly Catholic, some Jesuit--whom were confounded by this particularly American battle between religion and science. In their mind, anyway, the Christian faith had no conflict with evolution of science in particular, and they thought it curious that so many in the country would find such division between the two.

I liken it to those who accept such religious texts as general guide books meant to guide one down a spiritual path, an additional search for truth--not something to be taken as literal document of the Universe.

That is, in itself, why many American Christians are seen as batshit insane by the rest of the world. Don't forget that we are spiritually descendent of Puritans. This is a group of people so intolerant, and so un-tolerated by anyone else, that even the Dutch kicked them out.

 

[ivwshane]

I didn't see this posted yet:

https://www.change.org/petitions/house-science-committee-remove-rep-paul-broun

At the very least he should be removed from the committee, let the voters decide if he should keep his job.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

That's exactly the sort of person I want on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Who better to fund our space program than someone who wants the opportunity to give God a high five?

 

[Fern]

He is a physician who received his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia (now Georgia Health Sciences University) and he calls himself a "scientist". Yet he proudly utters



https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eU4B86AL5Go

My mind is blown that someone with such a disdain for the scientific method and reason and facts can be amongst those who chart the course of scientific research at the U.S. government level.
-snip-

What committee would you want him on?

That one looks as good as any to me. There's a subcommittee that seems to actually handle research etc and he's not on it.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I used to think that as well, but the more I thought about it, the more I've come to support the idea that science and religion ARE mutually exclusive. Not because we can't come up with some situation where their respective explanations are compatible (or at least aren't contradictory), but because their underlying methodology is completely different.

Science is about exploring mysteries, gathering evidence, formulating theories and testing those theories. Religion is about coming up with an "answer" to a question that explicitly must be taken on "faith". The idea isn't to find out the real answer, it's to satisfy the person asking the question. Trying to introduce religious beliefs in scientific pursuits is the exact opposite of what science is all about.

Religion and philosophy aren't equivalent to science. There are those who want them to be, but they are placing inappropriate constraints and demands on either system. Is it wrong to kill an innocent? What equations are responsible for slavery being wrong? Why does the word "why" exist and not just "how"?


Why? What is the " meaning"?

 

[Thump553]

A crazy and irrational politician, that's not all that unusual. But this guy was a medical doctor?? That's just scary.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

He is a physician who received his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia (now Georgia Health Sciences University) and he calls himself a "scientist". Yet he proudly utters

there's your problem. sorry but i know too many people from top tier med schools like UCSF, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford, and would never say such a thing....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A crazy and irrational politician, that's not all that unusual. But this guy was a medical doctor?? That's just scary.

Unless doing research MDs aren't scientists. Certainly they should be able to know how to read papers, but it was a general truth that physicians doing research could be ff distinguished from academic scientists because they dressed more expensively and understood less. I recall Woody Hastings giving one fits and the MD clearly insulted by being shown up by a guy dressed in clothes that weren't a tenth of the value of one of his shoes. There was much mirth to be had when he found out who that "hick" was.

 

[dennilfloss]

According to Wikipedia, the guy also had a degree in chemistry at the University of Georgia at Athens prior to going to medical school. UG Athens was a decent university in the 80s. I was accepted there in 1980 for my Master's degree in geology (paleontology) but decided to remain in Canada for financial reasons.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Georgia. Nuff said

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So as a physician, how does he treat any of the drug-resistant bacterial infections? MRSA? VRE?

I mean he should be prescribing penicillin only, since obviously bacteria could not have evolved resistance to antibiotics right? What a f-ing idiot.

 

[Jeff7]

So as a physician, how does he treat any of the drug-resistant bacterial infections? MRSA? VRE?

I mean he should be prescribing penicillin only, since obviously bacteria could not have evolved resistance to antibiotics right? What a f-ing idiot.

That's adaptation, not evolution. See, one involves a life form experiencing natural selection by way of favorable genetic mutations that allow some individuals to survive, while the other involves a life form experiencing natural selection by way of favorable genetic mutations that allow some individuals to survive.
Completely different things.
:awe: