Tennessee to teach the controversy

[Danger]

Now the movement has invented fake controversies and false equivalencies.
It is a blatant attempt to create doubt and pretend that this doubt invalidates scientific consensus.

That is what is so freakin' hilarious about it. These morons were so focused upon closing all of the loopholes that they shot themselves in the foot. If that bill passes as written, the Jesus freaks might just as well go out and commit mass suicide; they are so cooked that you'd have to make soup out of them.

 

[SixNein]

I think there's a big underlying problem here - that there are seemingly a large number of high school teachers that would like to (and I think I'm putting this mildly) teach alternative "theories" to evolution and want students to be exposed to "both sides" of the story. As long as there are unqualified teachers, you're not going to get quality teaching. And forcing the teachers to teach stuff they they disbelieve isn't going to make things much better.

I wouldn't be surprised if even some professors in Tennessee desire to teach creationism.

Video Disclaimer: Crackpottery level is quite high (several part video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYit1cfg5Mc

 

[skippy1729]

Although I am an independent, with two lifetime exceptions I have always voted Republican. If I lived in Tennessee I would have to make some more exceptions.

If politics were a team sport, the Republicans should trade the bible-thumpers for the Gays, Hispanics and a future draft choice.

 

[ThomasT]

Unfortunately, my home state is once again attacking science with a bill designed to teach the controversy. The full text is here:
Here is clip I could find of the floor of the house committee discussing the house bill (pass last year):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJD59bzg90w So I want to make two points:
1. People should watch for this in their own (especially republican controlled) states.
2. I'm uncertain how the courts would go if it is challenged. On one hand, they are stopping short of directly promoting creationism; however, on the other hand, they are intentionally opening that door in hopes that some teachers will go through.

This method may have a chance of sticking.

From what was explicitly stated wrt the bill, I don't see a problem. So, I wonder, what's the problem? Further, why do they need a bill to explicate that teaching should proceed along scientific and critical thinking lines as this bill seems to be promoting? Or, am I missing something and that isn't what the bill is promoting?

 

[John Creighto]

I read the bill. I haven’t watched the video. There seems to be nothing wrong with the bill. I think there is a way to approach the topic of intelligent design from a historical perspective. This would be beyond the scope of a science course but the idea that everything is created for a purpose is more commonly held then by just those who believe in religion.

There are deeper philosophical questions here beyond science. The idea that everything happens for a reason comes from Natural law which dates back to Aristotle. Additionally when teaching history it should be mentioned that the concept of evolution predates Plato and the recent discovery of genetic switches makes evolution much less continuous and deterministic than conjectured by Darwin.

Evolution doesn’t negate the concept of design if we accept determinism but as Kant observed determinism leaves no room for free choice which would mean that there could be no true moral actions. This is why Kant invited the moral imperatives. Well, Descartes rescued determinism; theories like Quantum mechanics and Chaos Theory have put it in doubt. More recent philosophies such as existentialism have questioned the entire concept of meaning all together.

 

[D H]

I read the bill. I haven’t watched the video. There seems to be nothing wrong with the bill. I think there is a way to approach the topic of intelligent design from a historical perspective. This would be beyond the scope of a science course but the idea that everything is created for a purpose is more commonly held then by just those who believe in religion.

Evo has the same take.

IMO, both of you are wrong. You aren't reading between the lines, or reading the history. This is the fourth wave of the religious right's battle against evolution. The first wave, centered not so surprisingly also in Tennessee, attempted to ban the teaching of evolution. This worked for a long time. The Butler Act that was at the root of the 1925 Scopes trial wasn't repealed until 1967.

The second wave was to teach creationism. Unconstitutional. The third wave was to hide creationism in the term "intelligent design". Also unconstitutional. The religious right is getting ever smarter and ever sneakier as its strategy evolves. Now the strategy is to "teach the controversy," even if there is controversy.

This particular front of the battle between evolution and biblical creationism started in 2000 with the Santorum Amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act, written by the high level staff at the Discovery Institute. This amendment proposed that

1. good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and
2. where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

The first item was a red herring intended to deflect attention from the real meat, which is the second item. What controversy? Evolution is a fact. There is no controversy. This bill existed for one reason: To teach that "evolution is only a theory."

The 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case drove a slight wedge into, but not through, the wedge strategy. A couple of noteworthy items about this case: (1) The Discovery Institute attempted to and largely succeeded sabotage the defense. They managed to convince all the key expert witnesses but Behe to withdraw from testifying. (2) The case (intentionally) was not appealed. It is not quite the law of the land. It is the law of the middle district of Pennsylvania. The Discovery Institute did not want this case to become a wedge through their wedge strategy.

The reason for the sabotage and lack of appeal is that the wedge strategy is much sneakier than the Dover school board's blatant attempt to teach intelligent design as a stand-in for creationism. The goal is to first weaken the teaching of evolution, and only after accomplishing this will the movement show its true colors. The first post-Kitzmiller success was in Louisiana, which now has it's so called "Louisiana Science Education Act" http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=482728 . Here's a snippet:

to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.​

Note the remarkable similarity to the Tennessee bill. More importantly, note the increased sneakiness here. The Santorum Amendment focused solely on evolution, which was a huge red flag to scientists and to aware members of the public. Evolution is a fact. There is no controversy. The newest incarnation adds the origin of life, global warming, and human cloning (WTF?) to the list. The latter is science fiction for now, and if it does become possible, it will be an issue of biomedical ethics, not a scientific controversy. Abiogenesis, the origin of life, is something for which science does not yet have a solid answer. That doesn't mean it won't. Finally, the reason to add global warming was to legitimize this concept of controversial topics in science. In fact, discussions of global warming are verboten at physicsforums.com. It's too controversial.

 

[BobG]

I read the bill. I haven’t watched the video. There seems to be nothing wrong with the bill. I think there is a way to approach the topic of intelligent design from a historical perspective. This would be beyond the scope of a science course but the idea that everything is created for a purpose is more commonly held then by just those who believe in religion.

I also would have no problem if taught in a philosophy course. However, the people advocating including creationism or intelligent design definitely would.

The intent is for these concepts to be taught as fact - not just a historical philosophy competing on equal ground with other philosophers.

Teaching DesCartes pretty much shows that just mentioning God doesn't eliminate a subject from being taught in public schools; but DesCartes is taught as an important philosopher - his beliefs aren't taught as fact. (To be honest, I'm not sure if DesCartes is even included in modern public school curriculums.)

 

[SixNein]

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/mar/27/tennessee-evolution-bill-goes-to-bill-haslam/

I'd say that the bill is practically passed at this point.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I also would have no problem if taught in a philosophy course. However, the people advocating including creationism or intelligent design definitely would.

The intent is for these concepts to be taught as fact - not just a historical philosophy competing on equal ground with other philosophers.

Teaching DesCartes pretty much shows that just mentioning God doesn't eliminate a subject from being taught in public schools; but DesCartes is taught as an important philosopher - his beliefs aren't taught as fact. (To be honest, I'm not sure if DesCartes is even included in modern public school curriculums.)

we talked all about God and religion in my high school philosophy course, though that class (and the rest of the gifted kids program) was a bit of unique situation there. And of course it was only us kids who talked about it, our teacher gave no opinions of her own and only sought to mediate the discussion when it got a little too hot :P

 

[John Creighto]

we talked all about God and religion in my high school philosophy course, though that class (and the rest of the gifted kids program) was a bit of unique situation there. And of course it was only us kids who talked about it, our teacher gave no opinions of her own and only sought to mediate the discussion when it got a little too hot :P

I’m curious. Did the kids get emotional about such things? The promise of philosophy is for reason to win over force and passion. Their once was a view called classical liberalism which believed that ideas should compete freely and stand and fall on their own merit. And by free competition I mean in such a way that ideas stand and fall based on reason rather than force and rhetoric. Such fair competition differs from what Hobes or Machiavelli might call competition which is better described as rivalry.


The problem with rivalry is that it doesn’t always result in greatest good for the greatest many. It might not even bring about the greatest individual good. The question of when rivalry is beneficial is a question of game theory and the best example to consider as a starting point is the prisoners dilemma. Rivalry or competition as it is euphemistically called is not prima facie good as we are so often implicitly taught though Social Darwinist messages.


No with regards to the topic at hand; does the divisive rhetoric between Chistians and Atheists in the United States bring about the best result for the country? Is this a good rivalry or a destructive rivalry? Is the attempt on each side trying to indoctrinate students with beliefs (scientifically sound or not) the way to bring about the dialog which will lead to the best social outcome?

By sorting kids based on what facts they can regurgitate and by insisting in the unquestionable authority of these facts we teach kids that what they know is what they are worth and that questioning their beliefs is an attack on the authority by which they derive their worth.

Now I understand that the scientific method is the best method we have come up to with to date, at establish the truth in a scientific set of propositions taken as a whole. However, the there is nothing in the scientific method that tells us if a theory is true. All we know is the method yields the most concise and universal set of axioms to help us predict the behavior of things that are within the domain of the theory. All axioms which aren’t directly provable on their own through induction are in some sense artificial and open the question if an equally good set of axioms could produce the same or better results. Axioms which aren’t directly observable or derivable from observable axioms come from presuppositions rather than observations.

 

[Evo]

I’m curious. Did the kids get emotional about such things? The promise of philosophy is for reason to win over force and passion. Their once was a view called classical liberalism which believed that ideas should compete freely and stand and fall on their own merit. And by free competition I mean in such a way that ideas stand and fall based on reason rather than force and rhetoric. Such fair competition differs from what Hobes or Machiavelli might call competition which is better described as rivalry.

This isn't about philosophy. It's about intentionally disguising religious myth as science in an effort to teach religion in public schools. Please do not drag this thread off topic.

 

[Bobbywhy]

I agree with Evo's point. The Tennessee law is a blatant attempt to create "controverseries" where there are none and to create "doubt" about the validity of science. It is a straw man argument, and, IMO, simply another attempt to raise religious myths based on faith to the level of science.

 

[daveb]

The religious right is getting ever smarter and ever sneakier as its strategy evolves.

I have to laugh when I see this...someone should point out to the creationists that their strategies are "evolving".

 

[Evo]

Evo has the same take.

No I don't, I have the OPPOSITE take. I believe you haven't read all of my posts and took something I said the wrong way.

I am OPPOSED to trying to sneak religion into public schools under the pretense that it is science.

 

[SixNein]

I have to laugh when I see this...someone should point out to the creationists that their strategies are "evolving".

I about spit my drink out ^^^.

 

[D H]

No I don't, I have the OPPOSITE take. I believe you haven't read all of my posts and took something I said the wrong way.

In no way did I mean that you supported this nonsense. I apologize for my poor wording giving the impression that you support this bill. It's obvious from your posts in this thread and elsewhere that your leanings are 100% opposed to this.

What I referred to was this,

The bill requires that it has to be real scientific theory, which would exclude intelligent design, creationism, etc... What is wrong with the bill?

The wording of the bill is on a first reading oh so benign; what's wrong with teaching students to challenge and poke into science? That's exactly what students should be taught, and that is exactly how the current education standards in Tennessee and elsewhere encourage their science teachers to teach science.You later edited that post to read

The bill, as was read, requires that it has to be real scientific theory, which would exclude intelligent design, creationism, etc... Do these people think that religious myth is science? The way the bill is worded is different from what was said by the speaker. It sounds like they want to alow teaching of non-scientific "controversies", as in BS.

So what is wrong with the bill? One part of what's wrong with it is exactly what you said: "It sounds like they want to alow teaching of non-scientific "controversies", as in BS." Another part is that it sounds like they want to ban the teaching of evolution. From the bill going to the governor, (emphasis mine)

"This section ... shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."​

Evolution, in the minds of some, is a non-religious doctrine (strike 1). Teaching (i.e. promoting) evolution discriminates against those people's religion beliefs (strike 2) and against their very religion (strike 3). That evolution just struck out in Tennessee is how I read this bill.

 

[SixNein]

So what is wrong with the bill? One part of what's wrong with it is exactly what you said: "It sounds like they want to alow teaching of non-scientific "controversies", as in BS." Another part is that it sounds like they want to ban the teaching of evolution. From the bill going to the governor, (emphasis mine)

"This section ... shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."​

Evolution, in the minds of some, is a non-religious doctrine (strike 1). Teaching (i.e. promoting) evolution discriminates against those people's religion beliefs (strike 2) and against their very religion (strike 3). That evolution just struck out in Tennessee is how I read this bill.

Another aspect of this bill that I was thinking about today is corporate influence. Anyone with deep enough pockets can manufacture controversy. For example, the tobacco industry had no problem finding scientists who were willing to reject the link between smoking and cancer. If you have a few of them, you can make the argument that the science is not settled (based upon the manufactured controversy).

In the link (somewhere in this thread) to the debate on the house floor, several legislators were manufacturing controversy for global warming. For example, the sponsor of the bill went on with an argument about the supposed scientific conclusion in the 70's that global cooling was occurring. (Obviously, the proposition had very little support in the scientific community.) The implication was that global warming was on very shaky ground. And it is more or less a guess.

So I think that this bill represents a complete corruption of science education. It opens the doors for religious, corporate, and political influence.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wonder if the lady in the OP might have been more effective if she did nothing more that read out this article...

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
...
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
...​

Maybe she could avoid mentioning the source until specifically asked for it: http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

 

[Bobbywhy]

What a surprise! Just during this discussion here on PF about this Tennessee bill I found this article from the LA Times about "Conservatives and frequent churchgoers" who distrust science.

“A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

"The scientific community ... has been concerned about this growing distrust in the public with science. And what I found in the study is basically that's really not the problem. The growing distrust of science is entirely focused in two groups—conservatives and people who frequently attend church," says the study's author, University of North Carolina postdoctoral fellow Gordon Gauchat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conservatives-science-20120329,0,2248977.story

 

[bp_psy]

So what would be a genuine controversial scientific topic that could be thought in high-school. Most topics that actually have some controversy are highly specialized problems in current research not basic scientific facts that were established at least a century ago. This bill would be incredibly stupid even if it had no connection to creationism.

 

[OCR]

So what would be a genuine controversial scientific topic

Lol... well, you just had to ask...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_experimental_errors_and_frauds_in_physics

OH MY!

They could discuss Gl*b*l W*rm*ng, which is so controversial that we cannot discuss it here!

PS:

[STRIKE]God[/STRIKE]Darwin... I love this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_12-571-3570

OCR...

 

[mege]

What a surprise! Just during this discussion here on PF about this Tennessee bill I found this article from the LA Times about "Conservatives and frequent churchgoers" who distrust science.

“A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

"The scientific community ... has been concerned about this growing distrust in the public with science. And what I found in the study is basically that's really not the problem. The growing distrust of science is entirely focused in two groups—conservatives and people who frequently attend church," says the study's author, University of North Carolina postdoctoral fellow Gordon Gauchat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conservatives-science-20120329,0,2248977.story

A few interesting notes from the study: 1) only very recently have 'conservatives' (as a whole) been less trusting of science than moderates. 2) The 'trust' factor isn't unanamous. Less than 50% of self-ID'd liberals (according to the study's data) have absolute trust in science (compared to about 40% of Moderates and Conservatives). 3) The real take-away is the decline in trust by conservatives (where others have held relatively steady).

I generally agree with the assessment in this article. More conservatives probably reject 'climate change' science (as an example) as a basis for policy decisions because they don't want to deal with the regulatory impact it will have. Dogma is dogma weither it comes from an ancient book or a modern lab. Even if most of us put our trust in the 'lab' - that does not mean it's an ad hoc trust for everyone in the country/world/region/whatever. If science is so pure, why even have a democracy? Also, in an ironic twist the article (and paper) notes that the leftists in Europe are the generally anti-science crowd.

Regarding the Neutrality laws like in the OP - I don't think they should be rejected on the basis of some 'evolution or not' demagoguery (from either side). The laws should be rejected because education curiculums should NOT be political like this (California is the worst offender in this respect IMO - they have such a crowded curiculum it's silly, all thanks to politicians). Even as a 'fairness' law it fails. It's still putting a constraint on what should/not be taught.

 

[russ_watters]

What a surprise! Just during this discussion here on PF about this Tennessee bill I found this article from the LA Times about "Conservatives and frequent churchgoers" who distrust science.

Could you locate the actual study you are talking about please - if it is what I'm thinking of, it was very poorly done, with purposeful bias in the questions - and has been discussed here before.

 

[D H]

Could you locate the actual study you are talking about please - if it is what I'm thinking of, it was very poorly done, with purposeful bias in the questions - and has been discussed here before.

It's the General Societal Survey, which has been conducted every year / every other year since 1974. The website: http://www3.norc.org/gss+website/. The questionaires are available from the site, and the questions don't look biased at all, at least not to me.

The cited results certainly do seem consistent with what I have seen. For example, back in 1974, you would never have seen Republican presidential candidates vying to see who was most anti-intellectual. Now in 2012 it is apparently mandatory that all such candidates must reject science such as evolution if they want to have a ghost of a chance of obtaining the nomination.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll have to have a more detailed look at that when I get home this afternoon.

Your long post on the last page was great and as a moderate, not-very-religious conservative who is a big fan of science, anti-evolution crackpottery really irritates me. But I'm just not sure it is as damaging as the anti-nuclear stance that is predominantly liberal. Evolution, though, is clear-cut and easy to measure, so it is used as a benchmark. But it is dangerous to take a specific issue like that and generalize it to 'conservatives are anti-science and liberals are pro science'.

 

[bp_psy]

Lol... well, you just had to ask...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_experimental_errors_and_frauds_in_physics

I asked for a controversial topic in science that would be appropriate for a high-school science class. I don't think anything on that list has a place in a high-school science class. I can't think of anything that could have been thought in a controversial way in my HS science classes. All We did in physics was some basic mechanics, optics, thermo , E&M and atomic and nuclear to fill 5 pages. In bio we did classifications ,cell structure and basic genetics and in chemistry we did the bare minimum inorganic solutions stuff. There was nothing controversial about any of that stuff then and I can't think of anything controversial in retrospect.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So what would be a genuine controversial scientific topic that could be thought in high-school.

It depends on how you are using the term "controversial". If you mean it in terms of a paper is published with controversial data/conclusions then probably nothing as a high school student lacks the qualifications to even begin studying the details of the controversy, also by the time the issue is simplified for teaching it is probably solved.

Socially controversial though there are many. Bioethics is a great place to start to galvanise school kids (and adults). What are the implications of genetically modified crops? Should insurance companies be allowed to ask for a DNA sequence? etc etc.

 

[russ_watters]

Socially controversial though there are many. Bioethics is a great place to start to galvanise school kids (and adults). What are the implications of genetically modified crops?

I did a debate on GM crops in an eng ethics class in college (pro side). The prof wouldn't accept the topic at first and my counterpart wasn't a good speaker, so I had to debate the con side with the prof before he would let us debate the issue with each other!

 

[Danger]

the idea that everything is created for a purpose is more commonly held then by just those who believe in religion.

That idea is religion.

The two concepts of "created" and "a purpose" both imply an intelligent creator, and are nonsense.

 

[OCR]

I asked for a controversial topic in science that would be appropriate for a high-school science class.

Hmmm, I think you asked...

So what would be a genuine controversial scientific topic that could be thought in high-school.

I sure thought about some of the stuff that's in Document 12-571-3570, way back in high school.

I wasn't always in science class, when I thought about it, either...

Lol, I'll bet you thought about that kind of stuff in grammar class... a lot.


Now, if you meant taught, I'd have a different thought about you and grammar class...

I also don't think that you could teach GW in a adequate way in a HS science class.

I probably had Document 12-571-3570 in my head when I was in acronym class, too.

What does GW mean?



Wait, wait, just thought of something... before I was even close to high school age, one time...


"I taught I taw a puddy tat"...




OCR

 

[SixNein]

I'll have to have a more detailed look at that when I get home this afternoon.

Your long post on the last page was great and as a moderate, not-very-religious conservative who is a big fan of science, anti-evolution crackpottery really irritates me. But I'm just not sure it is as damaging as the anti-nuclear stance that is predominantly liberal. Evolution, though, is clear-cut and easy to measure, so it is used as a benchmark. But it is dangerous to take a specific issue like that and generalize it to 'conservatives are anti-science and liberals are pro science'.

I don't believe conservatives are completely anti-science. In my experience, conservatives love money too much to be completely anti-science. At the same time, if they have to chose between money and science, they'll go for the money every single time.

On the other hand, liberals tend to be emotional at risk analysis. Nuclear is safer than coal, but its accidents are far more emotional. And liberals tend to reject things on those grounds.

imo anyway... So each of these groups of people have downsides from a scientific perspective.

I'd like to see a era where scientific and moral thinking rules governance.

 

[Gokul43201]

... anti-evolution crackpottery really irritates me. But I'm just not sure it is as damaging as the anti-nuclear stance that is predominantly liberal. Evolution, though, is clear-cut and easy to measure, so it is used as a benchmark. But it is dangerous to take a specific issue like that and generalize it to 'conservatives are anti-science and liberals are pro science'.

I don't think liberals deny the science behind nuclear power. I think they just have deep concerns, perhaps overblown, about safety and disposal issues.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think we should be wary about pidgeon-holing peoples political views. It rarely follows that because you take position A you also take position B, hence why there are gay conservatives and pro-nuclear liberals.

 

[SixNein]

I think we should be wary about pidgeon-holing peoples political views. It rarely follows that because you take position A you also take position B, hence why there are gay conservatives and pro-nuclear liberals.

There exists outliers, but the majority appears to be pigeons.

imo anyway

 

[CAC1001]

I'd like to see a era where scientific and moral thinking rules governance.

Both sides are anti-science in certain areas from what I've seen, it just depends on the science. With the Left, it's nuclear power and oftentimes economic science and for the far-Left, biology regarding the latter stage of a pregnancy, with the Right, it's evolution, and for the far-Right, biology regarding the early stage of a pregnancy.