A Problem

[Nightgaunt]

If a Congressperson believes in the 5,000-year-old Earth idea, that's fine with me. It's equally fine with me if they're a Discordian, Quaker, Buddhist, Shaman, Mormon, or Hollow-Earther. What's not okay is when their beliefs begin influencing policy. I worry when I see people's beliefs held up as objects of scorn and derision simply because they don't jibe with the mainstream, especially when it's suggested that certain rights and/or privileges (like holding public office) should be denied them on the basis of those beliefs. I believe a lot of things that the Priests in White Labcoats say isn't true. Does that make me unfit to be a Senator, serve on a school board, or coach Little League?

[ttogreh]

Nightgaunt, time after time... the young-earthers have consistently attempted to influence policy decisions based not on observed phenomena, but rather on their quaint beliefs. It is for that reason that young-earthers are considered unfit for public office by many of us on this board, not because of their beliefs.

Their actions are what scare us.

[Nightgaunt]

Nightgaunt, time after time... the young-earthers have consistently attempted to influence policy decisions based not on observed phenomena, but rather on their quaint beliefs. It is for that reason that young-earthers are considered unfit for public office by many of us on this board, not because of their beliefs.

Their actions are what scare us.

Because SOME "young-earthers" have attempted to influence policy based on their "quaint" beliefs, ALL of them should be barred from public office? Richard Nixon was a crook. By your logic, ALL Quakers are crooks. Or all Irish. Or all white males. I'm not convinced. And really, SO WHAT if they try to influence policy based on their beliefs? If it's really that ridiculous, they shouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. What this seems to boil down to is: pick on the weird people. It's a dangerous road to set out upon, IMHO.

[ttogreh]

No, I am not calling for the recall of individuals duly elected to public office, or for the barring of young-earthers from seeking office. I am calling for rational people to not vote for young-earthers in the first place, and to vote for rational thinkers to replace duly elected young-earthers when they come up for office.

That is not undemocratic.

[Raev]

Vote however your heart desires.

I'll do the same.

I'd just be happy to have everyone casting a vote.

[Nightgaunt]

No, I am not calling for the recall of individuals duly elected to public office, or for the barring of young-earthers from seeking office. I am calling for rational people to not vote for young-earthers in the first place, and to vote for rational thinkers to replace duly elected young-earthers when they come up for office.

That is not undemocratic.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but that seems like six of one, half-dozen of the other. You're still talking about keeping these people out of public office, based on their private spiritual beliefs alone, and not on their track record, public policies, etc. Democratic? Perhaps to the letter, but certainly not the spirit.

I happen to believe that Humanity is many millions of years older than the mainstream scientific community says it is and that advanced civilizations have flourished and died several times. Am I now not a "rational person" or "rational thinker" because I don't accept the mainstream view?

[phee]

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but that seems like six of one, half-dozen of the other. You're still talking about keeping these people out of public office, based on their private spiritual beliefs alone, and not on their track record, public policies, etc. Democratic? Perhaps to the letter, but certainly not the spirit.

I happen to believe that Humanity is many millions of years older than the mainstream scientific community says it is and that advanced civilizations have flourished and died several times. Am I now not a "rational person" or "rational thinker" because I don't accept the mainstream view?

Is willful ignorance to the age of the earth and other basic concepts about the world (such as it being round, the fact that we revolve around the sun, the fact that the holocost happened, that pots of gold are not infact at the end of rainbows, etc...), something that is "out of the mainstream view"... or is it just refusing facts and evidence?

To me something like, thinking facsim is a good idea, or that liver icecream tastes good, are things that are "out of mainstream view"... insisting that something that has been tested and proven scientifically for years as fact, and simply deciding that something else is true instead... that is willful ignorance or just plane stubborness without purpose.

If I am looking at a glass of milk on the table that came out of the milk carton, and it is white and milk textured and someone walks into the room takes a sip, and says, "yup thats a glass of milk" but I still insist on telling everyone that the glass is in fact filled with redwine and gasoline.... does that make me "out of mainstream view"? Or does it just make me wrong despite everything to the contrary?

Just me but I don't want people who are not only wrong, but consistantly clinging to there errors without any willingness to change there point of view, to the point of being simply ridiculous in public office.

[Nightgaunt]

Is willful ignorance to the age of the earth and other basic concepts about the world (such as it being round, the fact that we revolve around the sun, the fact that the holocost happened, that pots of gold are not infact at the end of rainbows, etc...), something that is "out of the mainstream view"... or is it just refusing facts and evidence?

To me something like, thinking facsim is a good idea, or that liver icecream tastes good, are things that are "out of mainstream view"... insisting that something that has been tested and proven scientifically for years as fact, and simply deciding that something else is true instead... that is willful ignorance or just plane stubborness without purpose.

If I am looking at a glass of milk on the table that came out of the milk carton, and it is white and milk textured and someone walks into the room takes a sip, and says, "yup thats a glass of milk" but I still insist on telling everyone that the glass is in fact filled with redwine and gasoline.... does that make me "out of mainstream view"? Or does it just make me wrong despite everything to the contrary?

Just me but I don't want people who are not only wrong, but consistantly clinging to there errors without any willingness to change there point of view, to the point of being simply ridiculous in public office.

I get what you're saying. All I'm really trying to say is that I think it's a little shortsighted to write someone off simply because they may have certain...eccentricities. What I'm getting from the discussion so far is: let's say a Representative has consistently voted according to the will of the people, has led an exemplary life without scandal, and has done everything right, they should be voted out of office should it come out that they are privately a Young Earther, Hollow Earther, Flat Earther, etc. When the emphasis is on someone's private beliefs and not their actions (even if the actions of those who have similar beliefs are not acceptable), we have a problem.

As far as things having "been tested and proven scientifically for years as fact", isn't that a contradiction of the true ideals of science? Shouldn't everything be placed under scrutiny and questioned? Now, I'm not a "Young Earther", but carbon dating is, or can be, unreliable, as any scientist who doesn't have a career or grants riding on the assumption that it's failsafe will tell you. As far as I'm concerned, there are plenty of areas which allow for reasonable doubt when it comes to various established scientific paradigms. As long as a scientist or government has something to lose when their theories and facts are proven wrong, we should never just accept their word that something is fact.

As an example of the hubris of modern science, I heard a story on NPR a couple of years ago about the Theory of Intelligent Design vs. the Theory of Evolution. The ID people were able to state their case clearly and succinctly, but when the proponent of Evolution was asked to explain evolution, she replied (and I paraphrase), "Well, unfortunately, I don't think the average person could comprehend it." In other words, "Just accept it, plebe!" That's not good enough. I don't accept the Intelligent Design premise either, but I also don't think that the debate can be narrowed to a simple case of religion vs. science. In fact, any time someone tries to limit the debate to two extremes, it tells me that there's probably considerably more to the picture.

Now, when someone has a radically non-mainstream view, yes, they're probably a bit flaky in other areas as well. I simply think that we, as "rational thinkers", need to be careful about whom we crucify and why.

[phee]

While I do agree that QUESTIONING popluar ideas is a good thing and healthy for a society as a whole... That is not what we are talking about... the cartoon above, is about INSISTING on something else despite the evidence.

Asking why something is thought to be the way it is can lead to different perhaps different and more enlightened conclusions... But insisting that something simply is, with no fact or proof to back it up while the otherside of the issue has such things, is not questioning, it is ignorance.

[AstralCrux]

The other big bang?

The theory about space rocks wiping out Ice Age species just got another boost: It turns out the first human inhabitants may have also been hit. Rare "nano-sized diamonds" that form under extremely hot fires are evidence that space rocks hit the North American continent about 13,000 years ago. Unfortunately, some pygmy mammoth (a smaller version of the woolly mammoth) and a group called the Clovis people happened to be in the line of fire. The galactic slam, plus "overhunting and climate change," created what one researcher called a "perfect storm" that wiped out the Ice Age population. The findings swelled searches on Yahoo! for the prehistoric "clovis people," so named because of artifacts first found in Clovis, New Mexico.

More info http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jul/24/tiny-gems-cosmic-impact/

[Raev]

The other big bang?

The theory about space rocks wiping out Ice Age species just got another boost: It turns out the first human inhabitants may have also been hit. Rare "nano-sized diamonds" that form under extremely hot fires are evidence that space rocks hit the North American continent about 13,000 years ago. Unfortunately, some pygmy mammoth (a smaller version of the woolly mammoth) and a group called the Clovis people happened to be in the line of fire. The galactic slam, plus "overhunting and climate change," created what one researcher called a "perfect storm" that wiped out the Ice Age population. The findings swelled searches on Yahoo! for the prehistoric "clovis people," so named because of artifacts first found in Clovis, New Mexico.

More info http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jul/24/tiny-gems-cosmic-impact/

History Channel just recently had a show about that, the first "human" inhabitants being effected by a strike.