OK, fair enough.
My contention in this thread was that it is conservatives, or at least those calling themselves that, who are questioning the theories of global climate change, of relativity, and of evolution.
As a conservative, I am cautious. Not to the point of staying in my house for fear of an asteroid falling on my head, but I tend to think things through to their logical conclusions. In my political leanings, I tend not to jump on a bandwagon because it feels good. I look at the issue, the proposal, and try to think the result out to a logical conclusion.
There was a time (probably before you were born) when some liberals did the same sort of thinking. Take welfare for example. I completely agreed at the time and today with an essay that Patrick Moynihan wrote in the 1960's in which he accurately predicted the generational dependence on government and the destruction of the black family that would result if government paid young single women when they became pregnant. Anyone who thought the proposal through would have came to the same conclusions if they posessed any sort of intelligence at all.
Do you believe that I am a genius because I accurately predicted the eventual outcome of the midnight basketball program? My bet is that you could have made the same prediction had you been able to get past the feel good aspect of the program and divorced yourself from the emotional aspects of the program that appealed to you.
In my science, I am cautious as well. I don't randomly throw items in a beaker hoping for a good outcome. I apply my knowledge of the subject to the problem and research where my knowledge is lacking. I don't buy into climate change because the facts don't support the hypothesis. There are too many holes in the science, too many very basic, fundamental questions regarding the climate that to date, climate science can't answer.
For example, they do not know whether the net climate feedbacks are negative or positive. That is foundational information and till they can answer the basic questions, they are just guessing on the more complicated issues. Climate science can not accurately describe and prove how energy moves through the system. Again, foundational knowledge and they simply don't know. Till they can answer the basic questions, I am afraid that I simply have no faith in their ability to describe the more complex aspects of the climate.
The theory of relativity? I am not a physicist and have never really considered the subject deeply. If someone asks me to alter my lifestyle in some drastic manner on the basis of relativity, I am sure that I will begin my research and I will be happy to let you know what I think then.
Evolution? I have no problem at all with microevolution. One only need look at dogs and cats, livestock and communities of animals that have existed for generations isolated from other members of their species. We can see microevolution at work all around us.
Macroevolution, on the other hand presents some problems. The theory raises far more questions than it can answer and any theory that does that has a problem. There is no hard evidence of a member of one species spontaneously becoming an entirely new species.
The issue of the origin of life is even more difficult for those who hold a religious sort of belief in evolution. Any explanation of the origin of life must depend on natural and repeatable processes. There exists no rational description of any such process.
If you buy macroevolution, then you must buy abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of macroevolution is false. Accoding to the theory, a living cell spontaneously arose from non living substances. How did that first cell come into being with a developed and intact mechanism for metabolism, much less the terribly complex mechanisms for cell division which would have been required in order for the first cell to not go extinct very soon after its creation?
On top of that, there is no satisfactory explanation as to how these single cell organisms organised into multicellular organisms in which each cell has specific and critical function.
In short, there aren't enough answers to entice me into belief in the theory. That position is subject to change as more information becomes available. Ditto with my postion on climate change. At present, the more information that becomes available, the less inclined I am to buy into the hypothesis.
Not to get into rehashing the merits of any of those three theories, are you confirming my argument that it is conservatives that are rejecting them?
I suppose you could make a case that because they are more conservative in thier thinking that conservatives are less likely to fall for a hoax. Most of the conservatives that I know are of the evidence based sort and unless you can show them a body of evidence that outweighs their own analysis, you won't get far. If you have the evidence, however, a conservative is proably the easiest to convince.
It is your lack of evidence, that has you frustrated with conservatives. If you had evidence to support your claims, convincing us would be easy. You are just mad because we aren't the "jump on the bandwagon" sort and it is an impediment to your overall goals.
If so, why do you think that is? Personally, I fail to see any connection between political philosophy and acceptance of established scientific theories.
That is because in this, like most everyting else, you haven't looked deeply enough into the issue. You are looking for a superficial answer to a very complex question. Most liberals are the type who accept superficial solutions to very difficult issues. It is why liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences. Climate change is a prime example. You accept that CO2 is the culprit even though earth's history demonstrates clearly that it isn't. Temperatures have been lower with higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures have been higher with lower CO2 concentrations. Rather than look at the fact that CO2 doesn't fit the historical bill as a climate maker, you accept that it is the culprit because of the feel good politics attached to climate change, not because of any hard, observed evidence of the cause of climate change.
