RoadWarriorFromLP

McCarthy was largely a one-man show. When it became safe to do so, even those in his political party turned their backs on him.

But Reagan, taking some cues from Nixon, transformed the Republican party from being largely a pro-industrial party with a liberal wing into a solid right-wing coalition of businesspeople and religious zealots. The liberals were pushed out and even the moderates have found no place for them there.

The 70s saw the emergence of the "religious right" and Reagan used them to convert the Dixiecrats into Republican voters. The Democrats used to have a solid voting bloc in the South until the civil rights movement alienated the whites.

Belief is far more compelling than facts. Facts aren't always comfortable or convenient, and for most, belief trumps facts every time.

sir_eccles

And if you can shout your belief loud enough and often enough...

Macca67

Kinda brings us back to what SoS wrote earlier. Simple question on gravity..what's easier to learn and understand?

a. F=G(m1m2)/r2, or

b. God made it.

Pulaski

"..... you end up looking like an idiot." ???

sir_eccles

Update: Senate public safety committee approves bill that would make it a felony to enforce new federal gun laws in Arizona.

Meanwhile: manhunt continues for gunman who shot several people today in Phoenix.

Yay, public safety!

HarryTheSpider

Yep - this brief lists several good reasons why so many, if not all, aspects of these Firearms Freedom acts should be killed in committee, and if not, struck down by SCOTUS... Let's see...

http://www.hapcoa.com/b4.pdf

MostlyYank

I'm skeptical.

Of everything, and I hope our science teachers are too. And passing that to the students. Blind acceptance has no bearing on scientific theory. All would-be scientists should be from Missouri

One suburb here, Lakewood Ohio, has a high school science teacher that teaches both. Lakewood is very progessive and is considered the gay capitol hereabouts, so it's not a bastion of conservative thought.

The teacher believes that skepicism is at the heart of scientific theory. That being true he has no problem teaching the two theories and letting the students decide.

For some reason, perhaps because we've travelled to the moon?, we think we've got just about everything figured out. Not by a long shot.

You think that textbook is bad, pick up you local HS history textbook. And that's everywhere.

Pete

Sally Redux

In other words you agree with this BS

MostlyYank

Whatever BS you think

You can do a LOT of things if you have enough power available. Sagan said if you run a teenie fraction less than the speed of light you can circumnavigate the universe in 28 [edit - YEARS darnit] ship time.

Pete

RoadWarriorFromLP

Unfortunately, he speaks for a significant minority of the population, which uses words that it doesn't understand and devotes far more time to babbling than to rational thinking.

fatbrit

I'm not living with that claim. Evolution is a true scientific theory. Intelligent design is a hypothesis at best. You know, like the moon is made of cheese.

The teacher has no place in a science classroom.

sir_eccles

No, science has not figured everything out that's why it's science not religious doctrine.

These bills have been carefully crafted to make people like you nod sagely and think why shouldn't we teach kids to have critical thinking skills. I would agree a very useful skill to have.

But that isn't what the bill is really about. There are not two competing theories of how life developed on this planet. There is evolution, the accepted theory that all scientists agree best matches the evidence. Then there are religious doctrines (which are not scientific theories) that do not match the evidence and fill in any gaps with God did it to test our faith. These have no place in a science class room, there is no need to even mention them.

Bluegrass Lass

+1

RoadWarriorFromLP

You're correct, of course. But it's astonishing that this would require an explanation.

kimilseung

Talk about double-speak. Worthy of the double-speak of intelligent-design proponents, who push it while actually not believing it themselves. Why would anyone consider something that nobody believes in (intelligent-design) to be worthy of classroom time.