A petition asking from the removal of Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) from the House Science, Space and Technology Committee has garnered well over 40,000 signatures in the two days since a video of his views on the topics he oversees was made public. "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, …
"Scientific beleifs" is an oxymoron
People use various types of test for truth: "I read it in a book", "In my heart I know it is true", "The voices told me so", "Consistent with a set of assumptions", "Confirmed by experiment". The first three all lead to wildly different "versions of the truth". The last two are interesting.
Each branch of mathematics has its own small set of consistent assumptions. If a theory can be shown to be completely consistent with the axioms then the theory is true. Any counter example makes the theory false. Simply proved theorems are combined to discover theorems that would otherwise be hard to prove. Mathematics does not depend on faith. If you do not like a mathematical theorem, look for a counter example.
In science, hypotheses are used to make predictions and the predictions are tested by experiment. If the predictions are wrong then the hypothesis is rejected. If you do not like a scientific theory, use the theory to make a prediction, then test the prediction with an experiment. If the theory predicts the wrong outcome for the experiment, publish the results so others can repeat your experiment and the theory will be replaced by something that makes better predictions.
The strange thing is that hypotheses in science often involve a mathematical model. Two completely different tests for truth, but mathematics is a tool used by scientists to make and test predictions.
In religion, there is no decisive test for truth. Religious truth depends on faith - believing something in the absence of evidence (or despite all evidence). There are no "scientific beliefs". Science does not depend on faith. When some religious nutter asks "Do you believe in science?" a scientist answers "No, I do not need faith in science. I test science with experiments."
Mathematicians can prove a theorem is true or false.
Scientists can prove a hypothesis is false. They cannot prove anything is true, but they can provide a huge supply of experiments that anyone can repeat that fail to prove scientific theories false.
Religious people ask "What do you believe?" because their tests for truth give inconsistent answers.
Re: An important idea here.
One might imagine that his patients are of his own ilk and whatever happens to them is "God's Will" and it wouldn't even occur to them to sue him.
Re: An important idea here.
A talking Turtle- that's proof of evolution, right there!
Or Alice in Wonderland is an OEM User manual too.
Re: An important idea here.
Politicians might do a better job if they did read the Alice books rather than the Bible. Dodgson has some pretty sharp and to the point things to say about the evils of society, even if they are hidden in a book for children.
"Verdict first, trial afterwards" - that just about takes out the newspaper industry.
And the amazing thing is that Queen Victoria approved of him, which really showed that she didn't get his views on Royalty. Talk about hiding something in the plain sight of everybody.
And then there's the support for socialism; the race in which everybody wins and everybody has a prize.
Perhaps we should start a new religion based on the Alice Books.
Re: An important idea here.
"But if he wasn't the object of numerous lawsuits, then one has to believe that his beliefs didn't effect his medical practice."
Are you saying he is lying to the Baptist convention about his beliefs or are you saying he gives his patients things he believes dont work (or even dont exist)?
Is either a good thing for an elected politician?
@Flocke Kroes: Religious truth depends on faith
Not strictly true. Religions like Buddhism have techniques that you can use to investigate the truth. Obviously those experiments involve consciousness so aren't easily documented or monitored, but that doesn't make them invalid, just tricky.
And maybe scientists answer "Do you believe in science" with "No" but among the general population in the UK the answer is often "Yes". It may be unpalatable but in our society science is just another religion to a lot of people.
Re: An important idea here.
Your points make good sense but fall flat I am afriad.
He is a Dr, a person of respect in his community and as a Dr.
You do need to understand evolution to understand the MRSA of this world and how they have evolved and adapted and that antibiotics shouldn't be given in a lot of cases, because evolution is at play and bacteria and virus' adapt and evolve. This isn't rare, how else would you describe the difference between H1N1 and H3N5 if you don't explain the evolutionary adaptations of the different strains, or would he call them different species? H1N1 and H1N3 which are different evolutionary branches of the H1. If you don't understand that, you can't give a simple winter flu vaccine as they are tailored each year based on the genetic breakdown of the flu that is prevailent during summer. They are genetically targeted each year by science and medocial men and women who decide and make the vaccine. or does he think god creates them in a magic 'vat' to kill of another of his creations (the flu bug)
You do need to know about evolution and genetics for every baby born could and will include some kind of birth defect that is a genetic trait, not a 'gift from god'. Any worried parent will come asking such a Doctor to say why has my baby got X, Y and Z. and 'God giving it to you because he likes variety' simply isn't correct for some birth defects. And most right thinking parents wouldn't take that as a good answer (unless they too think like him)
You do need to know about evolution because how else would medical science explain so many parts of the human skeleton and internal workings no longer needed (allegedly) by humanity, cockcix, the appendix. You can't explain diet without explaining the human internal digestive system and how 100000 years ago fat was scarce and so our bodies hold evey bit it can, and obesity today is because fat is in great quantites in what we eat.
As a qualified Geographer and Geologist I am not going to explain how wrong he is and how modern science, chemsitry and physics are based on the same technology used daily. Including the same technology used to make the camera that filmed him and the technology to light the room. If a geologist hadn't mined tungsten which is laid down over millions of years in a deposit how else do you light the first light bulb, if a chemist didn't work out how to make an inert gas called argon or neon, how do you make modern pretty lightbulbs. If chemists hadn't broken oil down (after geologists found it) to make plastics for the camera case etc. Plastics which is based on something laid down from dead sea creatures over millions of years then crushed under pressure in a geological trap that acts as a sponge to keep the oil in a specific place.
Does he think god laid oil down 9000 years ago and he fills his car with magic? The pyramids are older than his view of the entire world.
The mans a tool, and a dangerous tool. He needs his doctors licence revoking and an investigation to be launched. As well as losing his position as anything to do with science or medicine.
Where is this petition?
@sabroni (was: Re: @Flocke Kroes: Religious truth depends on faith)
Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a way of life.
I know Jewish, Catholic & Islamic folks who practice Buddhism.
Re: @sabroni (was: @Flocke Kroes: Religious truth depends on faith)
It's important to separate the practices of Buddhism from Buddhism. You can have either one without the other - you can practice without believing, you can believe without practicing, or, of course, you can do both or neither. Buddhism, as opposed to the practices of Buddhism (mindfulness, meditation, giving up worldly attachments etc), is incompatible with Christianity, because of the belief in multiple bodily reincarnations (Christians get at most one, IIRC, at judgement day), because of salvation (enlightenment) through neither faith nor works, and because of personal responsibility for your deeds (no repentance and absolution, just karma).
Terminator, because judgement day.
Re: @Flocke Kroes: Religious truth depends on faith
A number of Buddhists would argue that Buddhism is not a religion:-
(It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being." - www.buddhanet.net )
Re: "Scientific beleifs" is an oxymoron
Flocke Kroes wrote: There are no "scientific beliefs". Science does not depend on faith
Siddhartha Gautama was a prince who lead a sheltered childhood. When he escaped he saw suffering peasants and knew in his heart that this was something that he wanted to change. He tried out some of the religions of the day. His experiments supported the theory that starving yourself and holding your breath does not alleviate suffering. Full marks to Siddhartha Gautama for testing the theories of the time with experiments and publishing results that would have been unpopular with the authorities.
Plan B was to sit under a fig tree for days until he worked it all out. When he knew in his heart that he understood how to prevent suffering he started his own religion to spread his theories. For about 6(±1) centuries his teachings were passed by word of mouth. About 19 centuries ago, these teachings were written down. Modern flavours of Buddhism disagree about which texts are accurate, which have been embellished and which were made up.
The tests of truth used in Buddhism are "I read it in a book" and "I know in my heart that it is true". Unfortunately, using science to reduce suffering has problems. When you try to test your theory either you experimental group or your control group will suffer and complain about being used in experiments.
Re: An important idea here.
"I was surprised to read that though trained as a chemist, he practised as a doctor for some 40 years."
I assumed from the wording that he majored in Chemistry as an undergraduate, then went on to medical school for an MD (or DO). That would be a very typical progression for someone in the U.S. wanting to be a doctor. Among scientists, neither degree would imply 'scientist'; that would require actually doing publishable research.
@Avatar of They
"The mans a tool, and a dangerous tool. He needs his doctors licence revoking and an investigation to be launched. As well as losing his position as anything to do with science or medicine."
You have completely missed the point.
My point was "If the El Reg hack - amongst many others here - thinks that Broun's Biblical literalism *must* have a deleterious effect his ability to be a doctor; then *where* is the proof of the deleterious influence exerted by his Biblical literalism?"
YOUR post likewise explains, but at greater length, why Broun's Biblical literalism MUST have a deleterious effect on his ability to practice medicine. But sadly, you have neglected to show any empirical evidence that it actually *does* have such a deleterious effect. You are answered my question by, essentially, repeating the post which caused me to set the question in the first place, without adding the requested evidence.
And since you seem to want to prohibit such people from practicing medicine, are we do so because Biblical literalism actually is harmful to patients, or should such people be prohibited from practicing medicine simply for the sake of religious persecution?
@Gr0nk: Re: An important idea here.
"One might imagine that his patients are of his own ilk and whatever happens to them is 'God's Will' and it wouldn't even occur to them to sue him."
Sure, you could *imagine* it but do you really think that it's true? Because to me, statements like that seem kind of... stupid.
Do you think that he screens his patients to be sure that their religious beliefs align with his? Do you think that the American Medical Association would permit that for an instant? Or do you think that he has one treatment regimen for fundamentalists and another, different, "AMA-approved" treatment regimen for non-fundamentalists, so that non-fundamentalists will not sue him when he harms them or members of their family? Here are some questions that can easily be given unambiguous factual answers.
Speaking of which, is there any evidence to think that fundamentalist Christians - or any fundamentalists at all, really - are significantly less inclined to accept medical malpractice as "God's will" and therefore be disinclined to sue? Now there's something very amenable to empirical investigation.
Broun's district appears to be about 40% Democratic. Are you saying that all of those Democrats are either fundamentalists - even the ones who voted against him - or that none of them ever used his services as a physician, because they were more concerned with his religious beliefs than with his skill as a doctor? Or some combination of the two? And if so, then you are supporting your assertions with... with what? Simply your foolish world-view and nothing more?
But then again, who am I to interfere with the fictions you create for yourself?
Re: An important idea here.
"'But if he wasn't the object of numerous lawsuits, then one has to believe that his beliefs didn't effect his medical practice'. Are you saying he is lying to the Baptist convention about his beliefs or are you saying he gives his patients things he believes dont work (or even dont exist)?"
I neither said nor implied either of those things, and, more importantly, your two "explanations" of Broun's behavior do not come close to exhausting the possible explanations, and do not even contain the most likely one.
"Is either a good thing for an elected politician?"
If you refuse to vote for politicians who lie, then you don't vote at all. Is THAT a "good thing"? (Of course, I am only pretending to here to buy into your idea of what "politicians lying" is, when in fact what you would call "politicians lying", is most often only your inability to understand how electoral politics and representative democracy work.)
"And the amazing thing is that Queen Victoria approved of him, which really showed that she didn't get his views on Royalty. Talk about hiding something in the plain sight of everybody."
So well hidden, in fact, that almost none of the tens of millions of people who read his books even know it's there. So well hidden, actually, that it might as well not even be there. (And that's assuming that your ideas of his views on royalty are correct; I don't really care, though. No one else does, either. Well except for you, apparently.)
"And then there's the support for socialism; the race in which everybody wins and everybody has a prize."
And appropriately takes place in a fantasy world written by an adult for children.
Me, and at least the other members of the seminar on Alice I once went to.
In the Alice books, Royalty is ridiculous You can take the observation "Why, you're just a pack of cards" two ways. Dodgson was always scornful of any authority in Oxford academic life who wasn't, in his view, out of the top drawer academically but owed his position to rank or influence. Alice is rational and sensible and represents the academic view of life. Just because you haven't studied the period it was written in and don't know who some of the characters are, just because you don't realise that the verses are parodies of "improving" verses for children, just because you don't know that Dodgson actually moved in the "advanced" circles of his day, and just because you've never read the works of Rabelais - a pair of humorous books that contain devastating attacks on the Catholic Church - really doesn't mean you have to boast of your lack of knowledge on El Reg.
Let's be fair: Broun knows what "hell" is.
He decided to speak in front of a wall consisting entirely of deer trophies - all bearing antlers. It looks like hell to me. You might not find it particularly infernal (although I do), but it's certainly creepy, and definitely not aesthetic. It looks like something Hieronymus Bosch or H.R. Giger would dream up during a really depressive episode.
Seriously, who's idea of "good taste" it is? Broun should not only be sacked from the committee, he should lose his own seat for agreeing to speak in front of the wall. Yuck.
(I'm not a shooter, but I have no objection to people shooting bullets or arrows to get their own food, or to keep pests like feral pigs down. But shooting so many animals that it looks like a mediocre skin from Doom? No. Just no.)
Re: Let's be fair: Broun knows what "hell" is.
If this guy's Fundie God exists, I'll gladly roast in Hell for eternity rather than go to Fundie Heaven.
Re: Let's be fair: Broun knows what "hell" is.
Self-evidently it doesn't, because such a God would never have managed to create even an American politician, let alone a universe.
The big bang is solid science?
Um, I think you'll find it's the classic creation myth with the creator removed. "Oh everything just came into being for a reason we don't know" doesn't seem much better than "oh everything just came into being because God said so". And with the maths only holding up when 95% of the universe is undetectable, it seems far removed from solid science.
(Sorry if that offends anyone's belief system.)
Re: The big bang is solid science?
Yes but if you remove "The Creator" aspect then you remove so many other aspects of a religion. The rules, the messages from upon high. For example, The Big Bang did not attempt to tell us what we can, and can not do, with our neighbours wife, ox etc....
Anon because what I do with oxen is my own damn business.
Re: AC 8:31
But what you're not doing is adding any scientific value. It's a guess. That's not science.
And if you think getting rid of religion will stop the state trying to tell you what to do you're incredibly naive. Religion is often used as an excuse for oppression, but getting rid of religion won't make people behave any better to each other.
Re: AC 8:31
Where did you pull "getting rid of religion" from? I never suggested such a thing, nor would I suggest that religion needs to be abolished. You shouldn't be so defensive.
Re: The big bang is solid science?
The point, though, is that Big Bang theory makes no statements whatsoever about creators or religion and is not incompatible with any religion (that doesn't make a non-allegorical description of the start of the universe as a fundamental tenet). It is simply the best-supported description of the start of our universe based solely on what we can determine by observation. It makes no statements about the "reasons" that everything came into being.
The same kind of principle applies to your last (unbracketed) sentence, too. The maths don't "only [hold] up when 95% of the universerse is undetectable" - they just suggest that this is the case. This mathematical model wasn't dreamt up by a desert tribal leader a couple of thousand years ago and recorded on papyrus - it was developed from (and is being constantly refined by) the observations that are being made about our universe.
There is no science vs religion debate. Science has little to say about religion, other than when religion uses descriptions of the physical world that do not match with observations of reality. There is a science vs stupid debate, though, and Rep. Broun has made it clear he's not on the side of science...
Paris because, well, she's not on the side of science either.
Re: AC 8:31
"getting rid of religion won't make people behave any better to each other"
It won't stop people being bastards, sure. Hitler, Stalin and Mao are the usual examples of secular genocidal tyrants.
Thing is though, holy texts are absolute, inflexible and effectively last as long as their believers. Human laws can be changed when they no longer fit the society that created them. The policies of the three above have largely left us, these days, but the world still has no shortage of the medieval gynocidal technophobic cultists still working to the same set of guidelines they've had for centuries and still causing the same damage to our societies in doing so.
Re: The big bang is solid science?
Analysing the huge amount of data we have in many fields of physics gives very strong evidence that something like the Big Bang did happen. The theory was not pulled out of thin air or from a tribal legend.
"for a reason we don't know"
No. It's for a reason we don't know YET.
Re: AC 8:31
@sabroni "It's a guess. That's not science"
Some of Science is a guess. In fact MOST of Science is just our current best guess.
But what makes Science different is repeatability. Science creates a theory to which other people can review the experiments, can analyse the data, and can repeat those experiments for themselves. Through repeatability you have proof that the theory holds true.
So our best guess is actually based on proper risk analysis and statistical likelihood.
There is ZERO proof in religion. What makes this dangerous is that some religious standings make guesses that have only a "leap of faith" to their conclusion. Stand on a motorway and see how long it takes for a car to hit you - Statistics and science tell you you'll die, but a leap of faith will save you.
I don't particularly want to get rid of religion, however if religion can't accept empirical evidence then perhaps we are better off without religion. "getting rid of religion won't make people behave any better to each other" - actually it probably would - most of the worlds conflicts, wars and troubles have a sound footing in differences of religious opinion.
Hey, interesting responses from everyone!
My original post was specifically about the big bang theory, it's description as solid science and how I felt that was dubious. The observation that everything seems to be flying out from a central point is possibly explained by a big bang, but it's really just a best guess and says nothing about what was there before the bang. I'm not slagging off the theory but it doesn't seem to really answer "where did everything come from?" and I'm not sure we'll ever have the capability to definitively answer that. As such it seems perfectly fair to say it's just the creation myth without the creator.
However, I don't see religion as the biggest problem for civilisation, it's human nature that twists organised religion into a means of oppression. As a child I found the Bible (New testament, I went to a C of E primary school) to basically be about how you should be nice to people, think of others before yourself, etc. All admirable stuff that should make the world a better place. That people can twist that sort of message into an excuse for war is a ridiculous but unfortunate reality.
A few people said that Buddhism isn't really a religion. To me it's more like the only real (major) religion, specifically because it has a set of techniques that you can use to investigate reality yourself. I think "real" religion is about the nature of reality and consciousness, not about taking a set of rules and following them. This philosophical tradition actually exists in some old schools of Christianity and doubtless in the other major religions as well.
To me there is a whiff of fundamentalism to the current trend to be anti-religion and pro-science that has all the bad attributes of religious fundamentalism. However, the comments in this thread have all been very civil, which is refreshing! As long as we can discuss these things reasonably there's a good chance we can all get along! If we all agreed with each other on everything it'd be a pretty boring forum!
What was before the big bang...?
The point is that as time was created as part of the big bang, it's not actually a meaningful question to ask "what was there before the big bang?" We just don't have the vocabulary or imagination to contemplate it in a meaningful manner - all we can do is see where the maths equations take us.
Big Bang versus God
Big bang theory is not at all 'the classic creation myth with the creator removed.'
For one, it is a theory. If you believe in a theory (or not), then you failed to understand the first commandment of science: THOU SHALT NOT BELIEVE!
For another, it does not create any kind of myth, because it refrains from speculation about the unobservable origin of everything. The big bang theory postulates a very dense cloud of matter as origin of our Universe and as a result predicts a nonzero background temperature, a certain matter distribution, etc. Those things can be observed and indicate that the theory is useful to describe our world.
God, OTOH, is quite untestable. You might try to evaluate the 'god theory' by gauging the truthfulness of statements in the bible. Good luck with that.
"getting rid of religion won't make people behave any better to each other" - actually it probably would - most of the worlds conflicts, wars and troubles have a sound footing in differences of religious opinion."
And here i thought that most of it was economic in nature. But no, it seems that if all religion was abolished, everyone would share everything with everyone else, and there would be plenty of everything, and we would all be happy.
You're missing out on some good health
"This El Reg hack would have severe doubts about going to a doctor who didn't believe in evolution"
I've been treated by many a Muslim,Jewish and (gasp at the horror) Christian doctor and I've never been killed once. Surely, if they apply the science (the science is all we care about these days), why do you worry about what they believe?
Do you take a questionnaire with you before you receive a service to make sure the person helping you matches your ideals?
Maybe we should ban bus drivers who believe that petrol comes from tanks in petrol stations and has nothing to do with prehistoric plant life.
Re: You're missing out on some good health
"I've been treated by many a Muslim,Jewish and (gasp at the horror) Christian doctor and I've never been killed once."
how do you know? Certain religions believe in life after death/reincarnation, etc These religious doctors could have killed you lots of times. They haven't killed you THIS time.....yet.
Personally I say you can't beat leaches....tasty too.
Thing about these people
Is that they are all lying opportunists. That bloke Broun will switch from preaching for good Jesus to Mr Mohammed's, PBUH, side at the snap of the fingers the moment he believes his personal power will increase from the change of allegiance.
Does he himself believe in the cr*p he is talking about 9k year old Earth? I bet he doesn't. He is a snake oil seller and he knows that what he sells will at best not do you any good and probably can kill you but, as long as you give him your
moneyvotes, he couldn't care less.
He doesn't need to worry about being exposed on the Internet.
Because if science is that badly wrong then the complex technologies that make the Internet function can't possibly work and so the Internet doesn't exist.
I personally think anyone fanatical about religion needs to be sectioned. They obviously have a screw loose somewhere. Even more so if they use their religious beliefs as some sort of decision making system for deciding about invading other countries (Blair asked god for advice).
Broun should read The LAST Testament.
"All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,"
Evolution: ”We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” Quran 21:30
Embryology: "We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then from a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed ... and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes." Quran 22:5
Big Bang theory: "And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it." Quran, 51:47
If I were promote the vilification of those who "Believe" would that make me a hate-monger or an anti-hate-monger?
Every time I hear the word "Faith" I feel the need to laugh hysterically. I find it stunning that supposedly intelligent people still wholeheartedly believe in something that in most cases has been proved to be 100% balderdash. I actually feel a little sorry for those who feel that they have to go along with their friends/neighbours/collegues just to fit in with them. I would rather not fit in and die alone than pander to that kind of Us & Them mentality. Don't they realise that it's never been Us & Them. It 's always been Me & Them.
As for the Bible, it's worse than the Qur'an as the Bible has been translated many times by many different people and is most likely the result of the worlds longest game of Chinese Whispers. That said, why anyone would want to live by a set of rules defined 2000 or 1500 years ago is beyond me.
"That said, why anyone would want to live by a set of rules defined 2000 or 1500 years ago is beyond me."
Let's see... "Thou shalt not kill" "Thou shalt not steal" "Thou shalt not bear false witness"...Which of those are you taking issue with?
They get worse
Feel free to google Charlie Fuqua if you doubt me.
Nice backdrop for his speech,
reminded me of DOOM / QUAKE, and was surely chosen to reinforce his 'pit of hell' comment.
Re: Nice backdrop for his speech,
You think so? I think it was just to confirm his support for the "traditional values", which include killing other living beings for entertainment.
But these are enlightened times we live in. In the past it could easily have been heads of Comanches or escaped slaves on the wall...
If you're collecting them...
consider Oklahoma G.O.P. Senate candidate Ian M. Hurt. Here, I quote an article from The Moderate Voice
Senate Candidate Claims Legitimate Rape Responsible for Global Warming
Oct 8, 2012 by <http://themoderatevoice.com/author/robert-a-levine/>ROBERT A. LEVINE, TMV Guest Voice Columnist
Oklahoma G.O.P. Senate candidate Ian M. Hurt caused an uproar last night when he asserted that legitimate rape is responsible for global warming and not fossil fuels…
According to Hurt, recent research at the Climatology Institute of America in Oklahoma City by Professor James Wright, has shown unequivocally that global warming is the result of forcible rape rather than from the burning of fossil fuels. (Wright’s research at the Institute has been funded by the Koch brothers.)
When a woman struggles against a rapist, the temperature in the immediate vicinity rises due to the generation of body heat. One rape alone has a minimal effect on global temperatures. However, multiple rapes throughout America and around the world have elevated atmospheric temperatures by two degrees Celsius over the last century, a much greater increase than would have normally been expected. It is believed that the temperature increase from rape may be even greater in the future. Wright asserts that the blame placed on fossil fuels by a number of climatologists for the temperature rise has been off base, propagated by radical environmentalists. …
Hurt has not yet responded to his opponent. In a written statement he has declared that if global warming is to be controlled, it is imperative that women not struggle when being forcibly raped but accept penetration passively. In this way, heat generation will be reduced and the climatic temperatures will slowly revert to normal over time.
…He realizes that liberal and moderates who are convinced that fossil fuel is the culprit in global warming will do a slow burn over his suggestions, but says he must speak his mind about his beliefs.
Hurt emphasizes that his refusal to drop out of the Senate race is based on his conviction that he was correct in his comments regarding climate change and rape. He sees no reason to apologize since the facts are the facts. …
Though Hurt says he understands that rape is not a pleasant experience for most women, they should think of the big picture while it is taking place, such as the melting ice caps, the rise of the sea level, the flooding of low lying islands, and the destruction of coastal cities with global warming. Thus, when they are being attacked, for the good of all mankind they should not resist the rapist and try to enjoy it. Of course, their consciences should guide them, but if the mindset of no resistance becomes generally accepted by women, climate change could be controlled within the next decade.
Women should also remember that, fortunately, they are capable of preventing any pregnancies that might result from the rapes, as has been medically proven by reputable investigators according to candidates Akin and Hurt. This has solidified their opposition to abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, in line with the Republican platform. Now, given the potential that exists for catastrophic changes from global warming, Hurt and Akin believe that the concept of non-resistant rape should be put on the front burner and would like to see it added to the Republican platform. However, their new initiative thus far remains up in the air.
I despair for America and the world, or (as the religiosos might say) Jesus wept...
Re: If you're collecting them...
You know that's satire, yes? As far I can tell there is no Ian M Hurt, at least not one running for congress in Oklahoma.
However, the fact I had to google around a bit to find this out and that is was vaguely believable in the first place is damning enough.
Think about it a second
Mr. Ian M. Hurt.
I. M. Hurt. You, know, like I. M. Stupid or I. P. Freely?
If Ian M Hurt, Republican candidate for Senator from Oklahoma, doesn't actually exist, does that make you knowledgeable, or gullible? And will it make you wonder what other hoaxes you fell for, and how much value your stereotypes have? Probably not, right?
Let him be
I don't agree, but he's entitled to his opinion, just as the Copt in CA.
We are bound by our theories. One of my favorite lines by Larry Niven is in Ringworld, where one of the characters outlines someone's plan. His companion says it is theoretically impossible. His response? "Maybe he has another theory."
We didn't see the positron tracks in the cloud chambers until we had a theory to predict them. They were there. We didn't see them until we believed in them.
If he's wrong, and we're right, truth will win out, but truth unchallenged does not grow.
Re: Let him be
I'm afraid you are confusing science with politics here.
Pursuit of truth is the essence of the former, obfuscation of truth - of the latter. You win nothing by acquiescing to politicians exploiting popular ignorance to achieve their ends. Equally, no truth will come out when one side in the debate is being deceitful.