Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am willing to bet that liberals are also more scientifically literate than the general populace. The general populace's average is brought down by religious fundamentalists and people with less education in general.
So everyone knows who the less-educated vote for...
No, it is a theory. The theory is not proven, that's why it's a theory. You're free to accept or reject theories, simply because, well, they are, by being theories, NOT FACT.
To hang 100% of your belief in them is to, well, take them on faith. Now, if you think your faith is better grounded than mine, feel free to say so and provide the evidence that what I believe ( of which you have no knowledge) is less reasoned than what you believe.
You believe in genetic changes to life as the means of creation of the diversity of life, which have never been seen, done, observed, caused, and actually refute the theories your same "science" uses to explain genetics and reproduction. So, you have to have a 100% faith bridge to claim that evolution is fact.
I have a faith bridge to believe that God created life. However, I have studied a little genetics, biology, biochem, etc, and have come to the quite rational conclusion that the almost mind-boggling complexity of just a single cell could NOT have happened by coincidence. It did not evolve partially, since if it is missing any part, it isn't whole and functional (alive).
But it's ok. You're welcome to look at the science of life and say "wow, that's so likely to happen by accident, but I'm going to do the same and say "wow, that's not possible by accident".
Seriously. Ask anyone who understands the glycolysis cycle, and ask them "so, you think that happened by accident?"
Molecular theory is just a "theory," but last time I checked we have nuclear weapons and electroplating. Your post reads like a text book answer for creationists hinging your argument on the colloquial definition of the word "theory" and not the actual, scientific definition. In science, for something to be considered a theory, it pretty well has to be indisputable. That was your first mistake. Your second misconception is that genetic changes/evolution of a population of lifeforms has never been observed. That is just plain wrong from bacteria to raccoons. Genetic changes in population manifested physically and behaviorally HAVE, without question, been observed. Better luck next time with that argument that an 8th grade science student could shoot down.
Tea Partiers were more scientifically literate than the general populace, and as compared with other categories of conservatives. The articles I see out there do not say how liberals came out, but I'll see if I can track that down.
I was going to make a thread on this too, but you got here first. I had not formulated my thoughts enough to put them down yet, but I read the article. It was very intersting.
Imagine from where this study came, too. Amazing. There is hope for liberals!
Several people I know (including a sister) are well versed in science (they were well educated). However, for the most part, they simply do not agree with many scientific conclusions (e.g., the greenhouse effect, dinosaurs roaming the Earth more than 6,000 years ago, etc).
If you are saying that these people disagree with the "scientific conclusion" that dinosaurs roamed the Earth more than 6000 years ago--if this is something they actually disbelieve and don't agree with--then, regardless of how educated they may be, there is no reason to ever take anything they say on any subject with any seriousness whatsoever.
So, you agree. Liberals are over-represented among the least educated.
Wrong again:
High School: D-38.5% R-36.2% I-7.7%
Community College: D-42% R-31.7% I-18.4%
Bachelors Degree: D-43.5% R-30% I-19.9%
Quote:
The levels of education* that identify most strongly with the Democratic party are the Bachelors and community college options, with only a 1.5% difference between the two. The Democratic party was least popular among those who had no college education. The Republican party shows a pattern inverse to Democratic identification, where its percentage of registration is highest with respondents who had High School degrees, withabout a 4% to 6% lead above both college education levels. Those with either a Bachelors or community college experience are most likely to identify as Independents. The amount of Independents who had only a high school education was less than half of the percentages within both college education levels. - See more at: What Effect Does Education Have on Political Affiliation? - MPO Research Group
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.