Do conservatives deny the theory of gravity? Continental Drift? Relativity?

Question

After all they're just "theories".

Are they all wrong or is there some rationale to accept some but not the theory of evolution by natural selection.

And if your response consists of personal attacks on me then please don't bother.

I see the first two respondents missed the last line I wrote. Good job reinforcing the stereotype guys!

Answer 1

The debate over whether evolution is occurring has been dead for almost 100 years - not only have the phenomena of adaptation and speciation been reproduced in lab experiments, modern science has yielded such vast evidence of evolution in so many scientific fields that the only people who bother refuting it are laymen.

No argument has really yet been presented that wasn't based on a flawed understanding of the theory. No one who has really researched and fully understood the theory is opposed to it. The truth is that most people who argue against evolution are afraid to get educated about it because they don't want to get proven wrong.

I mean, doesn't the fact that the only people who complain about evolution know nothing about it raise a red flag to anyone?

Answer 2

I get what you're saying. It doesn't make sense to dismiss a scientific theory such as evolution-- a very PLAUSIBLE one, according to the fossils we've found -- when so many other scientific theories are so widely accepted. Some people dismiss the theory so easily just because they don't care to know, and that, my friend, is called ignorance. Do you have any idea how many people can't even DEFINE evolution properly? I think what it comes down to is that even the concept evolution is far more intricate than most people give it credit for. We didn't evolve from "lower" lifeforms; it's a loaded word, and it's an oversimplification. But even more than that it isn't a matter of US evolving; we are merely standing the next step in an evolutionary staircase. Whether we're at the bottom of the staircase, we don't know, because we can see neither over nor beyond the step we're standing on. All we know is what and where we are NOW. Evolution is a process that takes thousands to millions of years, with minute changes popping up now and then in a nature-determined trial and error. No one species "turns into" another. Certain traits which prove to be advantageous endure in the offspring, who are therefore likely to produce more offspring and pass on the trait. Those who are disadvantaged -- either by the presense or lack of a trait -- are less likely to produce as many offspring, and over time, die out. Darwin wasn't 100% correct, which is why Darwinism is so often dismissed. But come on, give the guy a break; he was living in the 19th century, LONG before there was access to the kinds of tools and machines we use today. We're not saying that Darwinian evolution is infallible; like everything scientific, there are some follies and some really good points. That's why it's important to be critical, but not judgmental; science is about objectivity. There's plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution, but the truth of the matter is that we'll probably never be able to prove it by any scientific method. It just takes too damn long to see any real differences. Think about this before giving me another thumbs down. I don't have any kind of agenda; I'm not trying to prove anything or convince anybody that what I think is right. I'm just trying to be the voice of reason here and provide some important information.

Answer 3

If indeed something is "science", it must have been tested and proven through the scientific method.

Gravity has long ago passed those tests.

Relativity has not, and the theory has changed much since it was first proposed. Continental drift is also a theory, one of several that has been postulated, none of which have been proven by the scientific method.

Science and the standards it sets up are objective. You don't have to like that, but if you, as an apparent liberal, want to trumpet something, great Have at it. You just shouldn't call it science without it being proven by the scientific method..

Answer 4

Some conservatives do and some don't.

I could ask why to liberals believe there was direct government involvement in 9/11 when the preponderance of evidence says otherwise. But that question would be ignorant as I know the majority of them don't.

There are nuts on both sides and in the middle. There are some who just want to antagonise people by general classification. Now if you consider this a personal attack. That is your opinion. It isn't intended to be. It's an impersonal attack against people who just want to stir up trouble.

Answer 5

It's called the LAW OF GRAVITY. It is difficult for you to get an intelligent debate, assuming that is what you are looking for,if you include false or misleading premise(s) in you question.

To answer your question: Theories are just that, theories. They might be scientific evidence to back-up the hypothesis, but that is true of most scientific research. Have you noticed that one week there is a study that says caffeine is bad for you ,and then the next week a different study will say that it is good for you? Do you suppose that the scientist had an agenda and expected their research prove what they ultimately ended up proving? All people have a way of finding what they are looking for, including scientists.

Murphy's Law: If you research long enough you will find evidence to prove your theory.

Answer 6

Not all conservatives are on the anti-evolution, anti-science bandwagon, although I admit the percentage is distressingly high, especially among potential Republican presidential candidates and dittoheads.

I'll bring them around to the side of reason eventually...

Addition: as you can see from some of the responses, knee-jerk opposition to science is deeply entrenched in some conservative minds. On second thought, I won't call them conservative. Militant ignorance is NOT a conservative value, people.

JMB

Answer 7

I guess some still believe the world to be flat and the earth is the center of the universe.

Answer 8

I was thinking about the global warming issue yesterday because I really can't believe how militantly people will argue against the whole concept that humans MIGHT be doing things that contribute to the effect.

I came to this conclusion: Some people just need to be angry about something. And they feel so passionately about every issue they encounter that they assume everyone else feels that passionately about all issues as well. So if an opponent to their political ideology brings up an idea - say, for instance, that the sky is blue - they will drive themselves into the ground to find every piece of "evidence" they can that the sky is, in fact, red. They'll find some lunatic scientist who was kicked out of MIT who theorizes that "blue" to you isn't "blue" to me, so the color we're seeing is the same, but our name for it is different, or some ridiculous notion like that.

Personally, I don't understand why people get so angry at the suggestion that we might want to be a little more careful how we treat our one and only planet. But obviously, there are those who think that preventing anyone from finding alternative fuel sources is the single most important issue facing us as humans today. Personally, I'd really rather see our country return to its pre-GWB level of unity than worry about making sure I can continue to drive a Hummer and throw beer cans out the window as I'm going down the highway... but again... that's me.

Answer 9

so it's OK for you to ask a question that makes a personal attack but you don't want the same type of response. Idiot.

Gravity isn't a theory. Neither is evolution for that matter. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory used to explain that fact.

And I'm a conservative.

Answer 10

I consider myself a conservative and I accept these theories and also evolution though not the evolution of one species into another. I believe that the weak don't survive in the end. I believe that we adapt to the world around us; people have gotten taller, smarter, etc.