'Scientist' in Congress saying evolution is from "Pit of Hell"

1. 75

   Stacie Lposted 12 years ago

   By Alan Boyle
   
   U.S. Rep. Paul Broun's view that the theories of evolution and the big bang are "lies straight from the pit of Hell" is getting more exposure than he might have expected, thanks to a video that was made at a church-sponsored banquet in Georgia and distributed by a progressive political watchdog group.
   
   The Georgia Republican is already well-known as an outspoken conservative Christian, due in part to his unsuccessful campaign to have 2010 declared "the Year of the Bible." But the latest comments have taken on an extra dab of controversy because Broun, a medical doctor, calls himself a scientist in the video and chairs the House Science Committee's panel on investigations and oversight.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … ikEWuBrkHc
   
   read more
   http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 … -hell?lite
   Evolution is not recognized by this man -a representative in congress. I guess he is entitled to his private opinions

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well, it is from the "Pit of Hell", in the sense that the theory of evolution is one of the most complicated belief systems ever invented by man.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, they use big, scary words like "biology" and "DNA". It's not so complicated once you pass beyond 7th grade.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Do you teach that bullshit in 7th grade? Quit Samaritan, you can't hang, go troll a whinne Christian
            
            Once you pass beyond a certain age, brother Charley, you actually learn how much bullshit that theory actually is.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Justsilvieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Who voted these people in?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               By a population of poorly educated, brainwashed bible thumpers. That how thoses idiots got voted in.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Instead they should've taken you in, Samaritan

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It's scary he is chairing a committee; however, our democracy never claimed it would ensure that idiots would be kept out of government.  It only posits that  the population will be well represented.  The question is: is he representing his population?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         He indeed does represent.
         
         National Christian Populations: US - 246,780,000 (79.5% of the Population)
         http://christianity.about.com/od/denomi … ntoday.htm

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Precisely.  Voters who believe in preliterate balderdash are not likely to elect a representative that will promote critical thinking and scientific advancement.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Right on! They will learn, sooner or later. Let them be as they are. Why bother?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Let them be?  I guess that strategy is how we should treat racists and homophobes also.  Being filled to the brim with untruths must be combated in the realm of ideas, and we cannot simply hope that attrition wins the day.
                  
                  Public relations campaigns, public debates, and books should/are written about this topic. 
                  
                  This is a weakness of democracy though, that there is nothing that can be done without changing people's hearts and minds.

                  replyreport
2. 58

   A Troubled Manposted 12 years ago

   Wow!

   replyreport
3. 75

   Stacie Lposted 12 years ago

   A medical doctor is referring to himself as a scientist...now that's a stretch. he is in a position of authority and abusing it. yes?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      His training in his human anatomy and the effects of drugs on it, not in the history of the human species.  His authority doesn't magically transfer over.
      
      But even if being a medical doctor qualified one to speak authoritatively about evolution, this guy would still be wrong.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You do realize that Darwin first studied to be a doctor, right? Or was it his training as a naturalist or geologist that makes him qualified (in your opinion) to have studied and written about the theory of evolution?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I didn't say the doctor was unqualified based on any other aspect of his training, just based on him being a physician.  Why do you always erect straw man arguments?   He could have studied outside of being an M.D., and have valid criticisms of evolution, but it's unlikely.
         
         Most religious folk tend to do that though, and that's why the scientific community looks upon their "criticisms" of evolution with such disdain.   I'm no longer surprised when anti-intellectualism is touted as a virtue.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I wasn't replying to you, Okie. I was asking a question to Stacie; as I have proven with you before, your inability to read and discuss issues in a forum setting is piss-poor. Go have fun with your straw man somewhere else.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You're right, and I apologize for my mistake.
               
               My response still holds though, since your objection could have applied to either one of us .

               replyreport
4. 86

   Healthy Pursuitsposted 12 years ago

   This stale, paranoid, mentally lazy throwback is allowed to sit on the House Science Committee's panel on investigations and oversight?! When is this madness ever going to end? Sometimes I think we'll never get past the Scopes monkey trial and pre-WWII fundamentalist mind sets - and we won't as long as we accept these people in positions of responsibility.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You're free to save your country, and your world, dear Samaritan. Quit attacking invisible people here, and do some real work. Talk is cheap. Make a difference. Be as hard as stone

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Healthy Pursuitsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for your wise words, oh sock puppet.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @Healthy Pursuits-Unfortunately this is going to be a long process especially in the bible belt states where education rates at the bottom of the pile and there's practaclly one church for everty 10 people.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Healthy Pursuitsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         So true. I keep hope alive. Though in the present environment, it's definitely a challenge.

         replyreport
5. 61

   Paul Wingertposted 12 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Peer review only determines a paper's worthiness to be published; it has nothing to do with measuring the validity of the paper's content. Additionally, a new study - and most likely peer-reviewed article, for what its worth - indicates high levels of fraud in retracted papers. In short, peer review is not some panacea for your argument, though it might sound good.
      
      Read Abstract:
      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109

      replyreport
6. 81

   Doc Snowposted 12 years ago

   "Worthiness to be published" has a lot to do with "validity of content."  And retractions are still quite rare.
   
   It's also worth mentioning that the study you reference was limited to bio-medical research, arguably the most commercialized field of research.

   replyreport
7. 0

   huckelburyposted 12 years ago

   The scary part of all this is the position Houn holds: chair of a House Science Committee. If this is representative government in action, no wonder Plato placed democracy down the list of preferred forms of social control. Not to worry, Doc. The naysayers are like autumn's leaves. The flare up briefly then fall into Nature's compost heap.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Doc Snowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe so, huckelbury.  But I hear Broun is running unopposed, so we're stuck with him for four more years.  Besides, I live in Georgia, so he's mildly embarrassing to me on that account.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Are there any Democrats in Georgia? At least boot this clown off the chair of House Science Comittee. A sock puppet would be more acceptable!

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Doc Snowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, sure, there are Democrats in Georgia.  Even in the Georgia Congressional delegation.  About 40-45% of the population votes Democrat, IIRC.
            
            As to booting Congressman Broun, if it were up to me it would have happened already.  I don't mind his religion per se, but we don't need legislators who are not in good touch with scientific realities.  This world is what it is, not what it was thought to be in ancient Judea--though Heaven may be another story.

            replyreport
8. 61

   Cuchullainposted 12 years ago

   I can only imagine that , hes on the Science Comittee just to "manage" and oppose it.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Doc Snowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I suspect you are correct.

      replyreport