Isn't evolution called a theory? That implies there is no concrete evidence.Dear Republicans,
"...his inability to acknowledge scientific evidence speaks of the anti-rational mind-set that has taken over his political party."
Grand Old Planet
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 22, 2012
Earlier this week, GQ magazine published an interview with Senator Marco Rubio, whom many consider a contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, in which Mr. Rubio was asked how old the earth is. After declaring “I’m not a scientist, man,” the senator went into desperate evasive action, ending with the declaration that “it’s one of the great mysteries.”
It’s funny stuff, and conservatives would like us to forget about it as soon as possible. Hey, they say, he was just pandering to likely voters in the 2016 Republican primaries — a claim that for some reason is supposed to comfort us.
But we shouldn’t let go that easily. Reading Mr. Rubio’s interview is like driving through a deeply eroded canyon; all at once, you can clearly see what lies below the superficial landscape. Like striated rock beds that speak of deep time, his inability to acknowledge scientific evidence speaks of the anti-rational mind-set that has taken over his political party.
By the way, that question didn’t come out of the blue. As speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Mr. Rubio provided powerful aid to creationists trying to water down science education. In one interview, he compared the teaching of evolution to Communist indoctrination tactics — although he graciously added that “I’m not equating the evolution people with Fidel Castro.” Gee, thanks.
What was Mr. Rubio’s complaint about science teaching? That it might undermine children’s faith in what their parents told them to believe. And right there you have the modern G.O.P.’s attitude, not just toward biology, but toward everything: If evidence seems to contradict faith, suppress the evidence....
#21 Nov 23, 2012
#22 Nov 23, 2012
jump off your roof
and see if you can hit concrete.
#23 Nov 23, 2012
#24 Nov 23, 2012
If you're trying to insinuate that there's a disconnect between the age of the universe and the Biblical account of creation, perhaps you should watch the movie "The Genesis Code". Science is finally catching up with scripture. The movie explains it in terms even you can understand!
#25 Nov 23, 2012
Actually it has 2 left wings...one is just more left than the other
#26 Nov 23, 2012
So if anything goes wrong, it's Obama's fault, but if things improve, it's because God intervened?
#27 Nov 23, 2012
Yeah, pretty convenient isn't it.
Sorta like the ol' heads I win tails you lose coin flip.
#28 Nov 23, 2012
The disconnect that exists is among those who fail to understand that in a publically financied education system Science should be taught in Science Class. As you can see in Rubio's full answer to the question he is obviously a proponent of "teach the controversy". His answer makes it pretty clear that he is simply not pandering to religious conservatives but truely believes that the proper role of public education is to present a particular religious myth as something that should be studied in Science Class.
Course the question becomes, if the concern is to "teach the controversy", then why stop with just the Judeo-Christian account, shouldn't ALL Creation Myths be part of our efforts to provide a level playing field for impressionable minds. That few question why we're mixing Science studies with Comparative Religion is another of those great mysteries that really aren't a mystery at all.
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.
#29 Nov 24, 2012
Look closely at the Ape and Monkey, are you related?
If so, commingle with them.
If not, find your ancestor from another animal or play in the dirt and create your own family tree.
#30 Nov 24, 2012
Again I point you to watch the movie "The Genesis Code". It clearly explains how the 7 days of creation are "days" from God's perspective...not man's perspective from earth. Everything the movie explains is COMPLETELY scientific. Einstein theorized that time is relative to speed - this is called Time Dilation. Time is not fixed - the passage of time changes depending on speed and gravity. The greater the speed or gravity, the passage of time slows down. The stretching of space itself also slows down time. So from mans perspective on earth looking back in "time" and using the "evidence" available to us, we see the age of the universe as somewhere around 15 billion years. But from God's perspective, each "day" of His creation correctly correlates to scientific theory of what occurred in the universe and on earth in those same periods of time. Before you call this a "myth", I suggest you at least evaluate the evidence provided in the movie lest not you be labeled a fool.
#31 Nov 24, 2012
The child of illegal immigrants,(they were illegal before Cubans got the political clout to be "special", is now the poster boy for those who claim to be against illegal immigration.
Only on America do we love irrationality and inconsistency.
#32 Nov 24, 2012
Then you are suggesting a new course of study, How to Interpret Creation Myths thru the Lens of Science, not quite Comparative Religion and not quite Science. By it's very nature this would seem to be a class for 11th or 12th graders, those who have a firm grounding in the Scientific Basics.
#33 Nov 24, 2012
#34 Nov 26, 2012
Taxing the rich: it's not about "fairness"
SUN NOV 25, 2012 AT 11:51 AM PST
...a piece in the American Prospect by Liam Malloy and John Case entitled "Want Less Inequality? Tax It". It recast the whole fairness issue in a new light, and pointed the way to the solution I'd been wishing for. In a word, the answer to the "fairness" problem is to ignore it. Let me explain:
I'm going to touch only lightly on the article's opening section, which recounts the career of British economist Arthur Pigou. Pigou was once considered that country's leading economist, but these days his chief claim to fame is that he was a mentor of the legendary John Maynard Keynes. He was, say the authors, "one of the earliest classical economists to notice that markets do not always produce the best possible social outcomes." In fact, markets often give rise to externalities, or unintended side effects that can impact—either positively or negatively—people who aren't involved in the original transactions (the classic example of a negative externality is pollution from a factory, which affects everyone's health but isn't accounted for in the price of the factory's products).
Pigou said, very simply, that society should deal with externalities by taxing the bad ones and subsidizing the good ones. This may seem obvious today, but was a novel idea in the early 20th century. Among the modern incarnations of the principle is the carbon tax, which is designed to make companies pay for the privilege of dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere we all share.
Now along come Malloy and Case, proposing to treat out-of-control income inequality as a problem of externalities. They argue that excessive wealth concentration imposes costs on all of society, and that society should therefore act to discourage it, namely by taxing the wealthy more aggressively.
- Workers are deprived of sharing in the fruits of their labor. Back in America's "Golden Age" (the post-WW II era up until about 1973), workers' pay tracked their growing productivity closely, doubling the median income and creating a broadly shared prosperity. Since then, productivity has nearly doubled again, but wages are up only 20%. Meanwhile, the average income of the top 1% has tripled.
- Society loses the skills of many talented people to the narrow goal of getting rich. The more rich people there are, and the more wealth they have (and the lower their taxes), the more attractive the idea of getting rich becomes. It's been argued that the decline of American manufacturing is due in part to the "brain drain" that leads our most capable people to pursue the much bigger rewards of the finance industry. In 1986, only 18% of Harvard graduates planned a career in business. Last year, the figure was 41%, with 17% going into finance.
- The rich gain undue power and influence.
...As Joseph Stiglitz writes in his new book The Price of Inequality: "Political rules of the game have not only directly benefited those at the top, ensuring that they have a disproportionate voice, but have also created a political process that indirectly gives them more power." And every perk and government preference the rich engineer for themselves is both a threat to our democracy and a net loss to the rest of us—another negative externality.
- Entrenched wealth and power act to suppress innovation. Great wealth will make a conservative out of almost anyone. We've seen plenty of examples of how the rich use their influence to promote conservative causes and attack progressive ones. People and companies at the top of the economic pile, raking in huge profits, have little incentive to innovate, and large incentives to keep the gravy train rolling.
#35 Nov 26, 2012
And then there's the famous and binding "pledge" ALL Republicans at the federal level have since 1986 been required to sign (and obey), if they want financial support from the party (actually their backers) for election and re-election.
And the rank-and-file Republican finds this acceptable?
#36 Nov 26, 2012
Keynes has always been the most sensible economist, and his theories have proven true over and over again.
I just watched Stiglitz and Krugman on CSPAN discuss their respective books and it was truly a ray of sunshine to see two brilliant economists explaining to us lay people, in common sense language, why we are where we are economically.
The effort it takes to obfuscate the obvious, and keep convincing the 99% working class that it benefits them to make the 1% even richer, is monumental; let's hope that voices of sanity, like Krugman and Stiglitz make it through the din to the common man.
#37 Nov 26, 2012
The reason we have a hybrid ecomonic system of Regulated Captialism.
...In fact, markets often give rise to externalities, or unintended side effects that can impact — either positively or negatively — people who aren't involved in the original transactions (the classic example of a negative externality is pollution from a factory, which affects everyone's health but isn't accounted for in the price of the factory's products).
#38 Nov 26, 2012
Boring to the Max!!
#39 Nov 26, 2012
Chuckles for Boredom...
#40 Nov 26, 2012
Great post. Thanks for the info.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has written extensively on externalities as related to pollution, immigration, and corporate welfare through subsidizing businesses' externalizing costs. Kennedy's points out how this is an intentional and predictable result of the influence of money in the legislatures and in administrative "rule making".
You might enjoy his writings and his speeches on the subject.
Add your comments below
|Josh Dugger (Hide your little Girls)||11 hr||beeper||1|
|inter racial couples||11 hr||BV queen||121|
|sheriff 2016||11 hr||Me again||281|
|Jenny Craig||Tue||Betty Bopster||12|
Find what you want!
Search Young Harris Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC