"Destroys" works.

It shows the true face of the GOP.

Intellectually checkmated!

I think Chris went from a question on global warming to evolution (and back) to point out that a party that generally disses science can't be genuine on a solution to climate change.

Whatever. I like to see conservatives squirm.

The problem is, even if you're firmly in evolution's corner, you're still putting your faith in something -- in this case, the reliability of the scientific method and the integrity of the scientific community. So faith and belief are at work, if not blind and willfully ignorant; but that makes it difficult not to accidentally let the words "belief" and "faith" slip out.

Still, five stars for Chris Matthews exposing how scared this guy is to say that evolution happened.

If anything it does highlight the nigh-sociopathic cynicism of American politics. I mean here is a guy that clearly thinks creationism is bullshit, but if you put a gun to his dog's head he would never admit it, because it would be swimming in the wrong direction.

Wow Bort. You're really blowing my mind. I haven't felt like this since I saw the Matrix for the first time.

I'm just saying that it's difficult to express trust in science without letting slip words like "faith" and "believe". It's unfortunate, and it's not always easy to get around. For example, if you were Chris Matthews, how would you phrase the question about "do you believe in evolution?"

"faith in something -- in this case, the reliability of the scientific method ..."

ohhhh, Bull. Shit.

"is evolution valid on the basis of the scientific evidence we have"

or even

"is evolution scientifically valid"

don't confuse the epistemics.

Neither of those wordings gets to the heart of the matter, namely whether the other guy buys evolution.

buys? wtf.

if you don't understand validity, you fail at science. he could as easily have asked, "do you understand scientific validity?"

if you don't grasp that as long as the idiots have control over the semantics of discourse, they control the outcome of the discourse, you fail to comprehend the method of promoting a "controversy."

when you address people on the grounds of "belief" you're already playing their idiot game, and you will lose it. the issue has nothing to do with "belief." it has everything to do with validity. until this word is injected properly into popular discourse, the idiocy will not go away (or at least be confined to the ravings of the worst).

idiots can grasp words, and they will have to grasp this one.

They will have to? Just like that?

Mind you, I'm all for not letting Creationists control the debate, but you won't win it by saying "scientifically valid" either. The words aren't magic and they sure as hell won't stop a charging Creationist. Better wordings Chris could have used:

"So, did we evolve, or didn't we?"

"Do you think we evolved or not?"

"Would you say we evolved?"

Those get to the meat of the matter -- but -- if you're not careful it's real easy to say "believe" instead of "think", and then you're skunked.

nah then they just avoid the question. "I don't know and let god sort it out," or "I'll ask god when I meet him" - as you heard in this video. the topic is not what happened or didn't - the topic is whether they have the balls to contradict the philosophy of science explicitly, or just implicitly use faith as a criterion in place of validity in their little speeches and rallies and literature, at their little conventions, with their idiot constituencies.

until validity has respect on par with faith for the common citizen, nothing at all will be accomplished.

It was a misstep for Matthews. If he'd been a halfway intelligent (ha) evangelist, this guy could have destroyed him -- "No I don't *believe* in evolution, and neither should you, because evolution is nothing more than a scientific theory and has never so much as aspired to be absolute truth. Whereas Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Light, and blah blah blah."

When you make it about 'belief' you are bolstering the illusion that fundamentalists have that 'science' equates to some sort of rival religion, which is goddamn infantile. And it would be MORE goddamn infantile if people didn't go around asking of other people BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

See, this is where it gets tricky. While I acknowledge that using the word "believe" comes with risks, if you walk into a discussion and talk like science is always right because science is always right, you sound like one of those rodents in that "South Park" where Cartman ended up in a dystopian future without religion. At some point, you have to acknowledge that you're listening to scientists and trusting them and believing what they have to say (unless you're a scientist yourself and are able to prove evolution in your basement laboratory). You may not like it, but belief does enter the picture.

Couldn't hurt, though, to underscore WHY you put your trust in science. You could say "Based on the manifest success of the scientific method that has given us, I don't know, every technological and medical wonder of the past 100 years ... if scientists overwhelmingly agree that evolution is responsible for our being here, I'm going to trust them over the guys who picket gay funerals".

"talk like science is always right," "because ... always right," "listening to scientists," "trusting them," "believing what they have to say," "unless you're a scientist yourself," "able to prove evolution," "trust in science," "manifest success of the scientific method," "I'm going to trust them."

all of these statements have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with religion. it's not just about the word "belief," its about the epistemic assumptions embedded in popular regional discourses, which confine the minds of unfortunate, ignorant people, with retarded semantics.

you can't argue with religion by making science a religion, and the arguments for science should not attempt to engage with the grounds of religious argument. it's like waging a war on the worst terrain possible, and is thus a self-defeating process. people don't have to be scientists: they just need to understand the philosophy of science in a genuine way. thus, validity vs faith. make it the topic of a compulsory high school credit.

final year: "science, pseudoscience, and marginal systems of knowledge."

Reagan?

Ok. So, if you are a republican, there's one. Name another.

Zombie Reagan?

Actually, for republicans, it's all about riding his decomposing nuts.
(based on my own personal anecdotal evidence)
Not really a republican though..Eisenhower?

i ment more as politicaly popular with people besides republicans.

I liked Eisenhower, did rebuplicans like Eisenhower?

Reagan is still pretty popular with Blue Dog Democrats and Centrists, SolRo. Also, off the top of my head, Colin Powell.

I like the new memory hole-esque thing the GOP has started with magically altering history. Reagan was GRATEST PRAEZADENT EVAR!!!!!! and FDR "caused the great depression and nearly destroyed the world with his LAZER EYES!!"

glenn, you had me at zombie reagan

This.

There an obvious answer to that. Those are all MICRO-evolution, which is fine, not macro-evolution, like monkeys turning into people and dirt turning into life. That stuff is just ridiculous nonsense. There are no transitional fossils. And don't point to monkey skulls and horse bones that are slightly different from current or old fossils, I mean something like a whale-cow or dinosaur-flamingo hybrid. But you can't. And any evidence otherwise is a lie by scientists, or planted by Satan to fool us. You can't believe in evolution and God because evolution works through chance and even Einstein scientifically proved that God doesn't play with dice. Gambling is a sin.