While I think we could have a lively debate about what each party stands for (or doesn't stand for <g>), who forms the base of each party, what are the dis/merits of the Kyoto treaty, etc., etc. -- I don't think this is the proper forum. I think this sub-thread pushes things past the boundary of where we can go and remain civil on this list. So, you are entitled to your personal political philosophy - but I hope that we can kill this sub-thread before this whole thing turns into a political argument. Clear skies, Dale. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission. com] On Behalf Of William Biesele Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:03 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] science, religion and politics Kim: You had it right on your first post in this thread; but you put the wrong subject on the message. This is NOT about religion and and science. It is about politics and science. Intelligent design did not spring from a groundbreaking scientific discovery, but from a court decision. It is kept alive not by a series of scientific discoveries supporting the premise, but by a collection of politicians. Despite Don's protestations "It's hard to get published"; if scientific evidence did support intelligent design it would get published in scientific journals. Unpopular ideas have been published in peer reviewed journals, Stephan Jay Gould comes to mind; his work on 'punctuated equilibria' was not popular at first and did not fit the paradigms of the time. But he had evidence to support his conclusions. If there was evidence to support intelligent design it would be published. Probably in Nature with banner headlines. And the author would not have to worry about grants or tenure for the rest of his life. But there is NO scientific evidence to support intelligent design. So who keeps bringing it back up? Scientists? Espicopalians? Lutherans? Nope, Republicans and evangelical Christians. Why? The Republican Party has come to power by forming a coalition of corporate money and the religious right. How are these two served by denigrating science. Look at the Republican position on global warming and the Kyoto treaty. The public position is that by reducing green house gas emissions we would hurt our economy. Let me simply restate that. Reducing greenhouse gasses will cost corporate america money lowering profits. So is Bush's 'the evidence is still out on global warming' from reviewing the scientific literature or from a fear of cutting his politcal donors' profits? But where does the religious right fit into this problem? Without the religious right the republicans would not be elected. Estimates of evangelical christians are about fifteen to twenty percent of the population. And they vote republican. Without the evangelical vote Republicans may have lost the last election. So it is to the republicans advantage to get the evangelicals involved in elections. Was the push for the Defense of Marriage amendment from a fear of gay marriage or a desire to get the evangelicals voting. Where's the amendment, seems like the republicans have spent more time promoting tax breaks for the rich and corporate america than promoting the marriage amendment. How many tax breaks have they passed in the last year, have they even bothered to introduce the 'defense' of marriage amendment? So, those who believe in 'intelligent design' please spend your time ripping my post to shreds, enjoy. And to all those think scientifically, write your representatives, become politically active, vote, support your party, write letters to the editor. So why are we talking about science vs creationism on this list? Kim, it's all your fault - you put the wrong subject on your post. Bill B. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com