Excuse Me, I’m Looking for 144 Million Idiots …

… oh … never mind. I found them.

In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

Remember folks, if you do not believe in evolution, you do not believe in modern medicine.

Perhaps I should reduce the number in the headline by the number of even bigger idiots, albeit self-consistent idiots, who do not use modern medicine. The kind of idiot that would murder their child by not giving him or her insulin for diabetes is the kind of idiot I’m calling self-consistent. True they don’t believe in evolution. But, at least they don’t avail themselves of technology based on evolution.

Those idiots who do use modern medicine and don’t believe in evolution are the stupid hypocrites I’m talking about in this post.

Modern medicine is built on a foundation of knowledge of evolution. In the U.S., we have 4% of the world’s population consuming 56% of the world’s medication. And, yet, 46% of U.S. residents do not believe in evolution, at all, not even as a tool of one or more gods. These people demonstrably incorrectly believe that human beings were created in their present form around 10,000 years ago or less.

Why do I say that modern medicine is built on evolution? Well, let’s start with animal testing. Forgetting about the ethics of testing shampoo on rabbits’ eyes or even of testing Viagra on mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, pigs, monkeys, & chimps, why does animal testing work? Why does testing on mice then rats then guinea pigs then pigs then monkeys then chimps tell us anything about whether a drug might work on humans?

Well, if we were all specially created individually by one or more gods, it wouldn’t.

But, it does. In fact, it tells us a lot. Computer modeling may replace a lot of animal testing. Ethics may demand that we stop testing on chimps and possibly even monkeys. But, testing on animals works. And, the more closely related the animal to humans, the more it tells us about how well it will work in humans. Hence the use of monkeys and apes in research despite the obvious suffering it causes them.

Immunizations are another issue of evolution. Without understanding that viruses mutate, we would think that a single flu shot would immunize someone for life, or at least for a very long time. But, we know that some viruses mutate more quickly than others. So, while a yellow fever vaccine may be good for ten years, a flu vaccine is good for only one.

Similarly, drug resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in insects are evidence of evolution. A new factor in the environment causes breeding for new survival traits such as resistance to antibiotics or pesticides.

Evolution in progress.

Of course, there’s more than just an entire industry of successful health care that has lengthened our life expectancy dramatically built on evolution. There is hard physical evidence as well. This is the type of evidence that completely and utterly does not exist for any deity.

We have fossil evidence of modern humans older than 10,000 years. Hell, we have the fucking caves they painted more than 10,000 years ago. We have the extinctions of the animals that they hunted.

And, as for humans being created by God in a single step around 10,000 years ago or less, how the hell does that explain the fossil fragments of our earlier relatives as they evolved from non-human apes to human apes? We’ve got numerous species along the way. We have a whole bush of relatives some of whom were our ancestors and some not.

Source: Common Descent Described Graphically

All of this is hard physical evidence of evolution. But wait, there’s more.

For years, creationists pointed to “whales”, actually the entire family cetaceans including whales and dolphins, as evidence of creation. They cited the lack of fossils between land mammals and cetaceans as evidence that cetaceans were specially created. Evolution predicted that eventually, intermediate fossils would be found as the fossil record filled in. And, voila! We have now found intermediate species between land mammals and cetaceans. Here’s some information on ambulocetus and basilosaurus, two species of more primitive cetaceans as they evolved from land mammals.



Somewhat more interestingly in the field of evolution, one paleontologist named Neil Shubin was interested in the evolution of the forelimb of terrestrial animals. Somewhere along the way, the forelimb evolved as one bone in what I’ll call the upper arm, two bones in the lower arm, and lots of blobby bones in the hand. This is true of all tetrapods, though many have lost some of their digits in evolution. Horses, for example, walk on their pinkies and have no other digits. But, humans are in the default state of one bone, two bones, lots of blobby bones (wrist and fingers).

So, Neil Shubin realized that we had fossils of sea creatures from 380 million years ago and the familiar arm configuration from 365 million years ago. (Note: please forgive me if I’m misremembering these numbers from having read the book a few years ago. Perhaps at some later time, I’ll check and correct them. Or, if you know them, please post them and I’ll update the post. Thanks.)

So, he knew he needed fossils from 370-375 million years ago to find intermediate fossils. He picked up an old geology book and looked for a place with sedimentary rocks (the type in which fossils can form) of the right age. Then he limited his search to where such rocks existed without having already been scoured by other paleontologists. This led him to Ellesmere Island in the far north of Canada. Several expeditions later, he found exactly what evolution (and a little geology) predicted should exist, an intermediate fossil. You can read about this in his book, Your Inner Fish.


Or, for a bit less commitment, you can just check out this information about his find, which he named Tiktaalik in the Inuit language.


Further, only evolution can explain some of the basic problems in the “design” of humans. For example, in our eyes, the rods and cones face backward. This means that we are seeing a reflected image of reality. Our brains must correct for our inverted image. Perhaps that would be OK. Except, it’s not. The nerves from our rods and cones face into our eyes rather than out. This means that they must be bundled together and then go through a hole in the retina, giving us a blind spot in each eye. We do not notice these blind spots because each eye has them in a different location. The left blind spot is covered up by sight in the right eye and vice versa. So, yes, this “design” is “good enough” for survival. But, it is far from optimal. It is certainly far from what an intelligent designer would create.

Perhaps you might be forgiven for thinking that the intelligent designer was only so perfect in His designs, if not for squid. The cuttlefish family also has a complex eye with lens for focusing and rods and cones and all the rest. But, their rods and cones face forward into the light. Theirs do not produce an inverted image. Theirs have no blind spots. Was your intelligent designer practicing on humans only to perfect the design on octopi, squid, and cuttlefish? Hmmm… I doubt it. Perhaps your intelligent designer just likes squid better than humans.

So, evolution makes testable predictions that prove true. Evolution gave us modern medicine. Evolution explains the imperfections in our design. Evolution gave us … well … us.

Note that I have made no mention of the 32% who believe evolution was a tool used by one or more gods. That view is also demonstrably incorrect, but less so and with less far reaching implications. People in this category are not necessarily idiots. Nor are they hypocritical in using modern medicine since they at least do believe evolution happened. This group is merely not fully educated about the non-predictability of evolution.

I find it interesting that the current increase in belief that evolution is unguided by any god(s) is coming largely from the group who formerly believed that evolution was guided by god. There seems to be no change at all in the size of the group who rejects evolution completely.

I’m mildly sorry to any readers of this blog whom I have called idiots. But, perhaps a little bit of knowledge can cure you of this idiocy. Perhaps it is not a permanent condition. Perhaps it is not too late to learn fact from fiction. Perhaps you can outgrow your god(s) in the same way you outgrew Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Please, give it a try.

I know that calling you idiots was not exactly a good persuasive tactic. Others may be better at persuasion than me, almost certainly many are. But, in this case, I’m trying ridicule. For, truly, not believing in evolution but using the technology built upon it is utterly ridiculous. Next thing you know, those who believe every effect has a cause, despite the complete and utter disproof of this view in the quantum mechanical world, will be using computers.

60 Responses to Excuse Me, I’m Looking for 144 Million Idiots …

  1. Rodnikov Magillovich says:

    Definition of IDIOT: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

    Idiots and idiocy are, at best, shallow thinkers who believe everything they are told at face value, plus it stems from mental laziness as well as peer pressure to accept what is commonly repeated over many generations!

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

    Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

    Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.

    [read more at the link]

    I question the universal common ancestor, from the point of view that not all single celled biota need necessarily originated from a single progenitor. Furthermore, many mutations are not advantageous and fail to succeed then die out. The successful mutations thrive.

    Dr. Stephen Jay Gould in his research found that if a factor in a species environment changes such that it affects 1 in 1000, then that species will mutate to accommodate the changed environment, provided of course that the change is not catastrophic!

    Gould’s most significant contribution to science was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972.[2] The theory proposes that most evolution is marked by long periods of evolutionary stability, which is punctuated by rare instances of branching evolution. The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record.

    One problem with human perception is that once a belief is accepted as fact, that idea will continue on in the minds of the masses for millennium and getting their attention, never mind convincing them, is like trying to do a U turn with large cruise ship inside a harbor! It takes much help from several tug boats and a lot of hands-on close attention from all hands on deck!

    Now add to this the ever increasing speed of technological discovery and development. Huge segments of the vast ship of humanity are left behind and in many cases are marginally capable of understanding the Science.

    And on top of this add on those people who make a living by fostering old beliefs. Just read Rudyard Kipling’s KIM for a reflection on how deeply embedded religion and rites are ingrained into human cultural fabric!

    It is almost fair to say that Heresey is a human trait!

    • Thank you Rodnikov. I was not intending to use the formal definition of idiot. Based on the wikipedia definition, those to whom I’m referring in this post are actually either dunces (incapable of learning) or ignoramuses (ignorami?, uneducated or ignorant, or in this case under-educated). But, since I was deliberately trying to offend and ridicule, I didn’t bother with formal definitions and used the common generic term idiot.

      As for unicellular life being from a single source, the strongest evidence for that is that all life on this planet, even the extremophiles living near ocean floor volcanic vents and in Antarctic lakes under a couple of miles of ice, are DNA based life. Why must all use the same type of replicating protein (DNA/RNA) if not all are from a single origin?

      Other than that minor point, I think we are in strong agreement.

      • Rodnikov Magillovich says:

        I made that comment about single cellular genetics thinking that more than one case of DNA/RNA arose from the primordeal soup independently around the same time frame. Whether by lightening strike or what ever! It is my take that this type of organic molecular synthesis would follow what the Chemical Principles for those specific Elements in combination with each other, and would be very similar in type and activity. It is not accidental, but Elemental!
        I don’t suggest or accept Intelligent Design, but I do see Logical Design based on the properties of those Elements and Isomers available to react! The whole Universe from the sub-micro to the interstellar is so logical in its composition and morphology. that is why I am an Agnostic not an Atheist! [we have been there before with this!]

    • ECA says:

      HELLO ROD.
      Im ECA, MS knows me from another site, and many discussions.

      As to the single progenitor. you have a point. but there is abit of history you may not know.
      Long ago, the human species was almost wiped out.
      As with many things in the past, its hard to isolate many things after so many years. They arnt sure why.
      A snap in weather that change quickly and almost FROZE the planet, a virus or what happened. It restricted how many people/humans were left.

      • Rodnikov Magillovich says:

        Hi ECA,
        My handle here is also a subterfuge! You know me, too, from the other site as Obtuser!
        You make some interesting points, that I was not aware of the near extinction of our species. Whether that incident or multiple incidents caused some mutations to survive and prosper is an interesting line of thought.
        I also agree that religions are mostly based on hearsay and heresy, Plus ignore proven Scientific Laws, Principles and Probabilities. Mathematics is the over all “glue” by which the other Scientific disciplines function! Religions tend to make decisions and rules based on emotional and subliminal thinking rather than in accordance with measurements and calculations!

        On more than one occasion I have wanted to send you a direct email on various items that have arisen on Cage Match, but lack your address. Scott and I do exchange jokes and comments directly sometimes. I will leave that to your better judgement if you wish to pursue that!

        Rodnikov Magillovich aka Quackademic

      • Rod. I’ll give ECA your address since I know you want to exchange emails and then leave it to ECA to contact you. I’m still old school about this particular internet protocol, so won’t give you ECA’s address.

        AFAIK, the near extinction of humanity was 70-80,000 years ago. Sometime between those years, there was a massive volcanic eruption, about 10 times the size of Pinatubo, but still significantly smaller than Yellowstone. (As an aside, Yellowstone tends to erupt about every 6-800,000 years and has not erupted in 600,000. Perhaps that will be the solution to the catastrophe that is humanity.)

        Anyway, it is possible that the eruption was the cause of the near total extinction of humanity. Alas that it did not take the last 2-7,000 people on the planet with it. What I could do with a time machine!

        Regardless, this has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that DNA evolved more than once. To me, given the fact that all DNA uses the same 4 amino acids (ACTG) in extremely complex strands seems to me to be unlikely were DNA to have independently formed more than once. So, in the absence of information to the contrary, I’ll stick to Occam’s Razor and continue to believe (until proven otherwise) that life began just once on this planet.

      • Rodnikov Magillovich says:

        Thanx Scott,
        I agree with your take on publicity of email addresses until the day that they are all published in an online type “phone book” for normal access. I don’t agree with partial privacy!
        Regards the once in a Big Bang occurrence of DNA formation, I will have to accede to the math until it can be proven otherwise, but will still point to it as being possible if not probable!
        But, on further thought along this line, if 2 to 7K survived a catastrophic event, then the anthropological examination of the current DNA available for analysis should reveal multiple lines that do not merge back to a common source!
        Has any Neanderthal DNA ever been found? Given that the odd ancient corpse has been found in bogs and one or more in a glacier, this is a real possibility some day!
        If I ever win a big lottery [this week-end has 2 available here!], I would like to buy, build, and use a ground penetrating radar plus a large metal detector coil to search various locations for interesting anomalies! This is a niche that is not being filled as far as I know! There are numerous missing persons, too, whose remains have not been found as well as some that have, but are unidentified.
        Another use of GPR is to search avalanche sites immediately after the slide for buried skiers, snowmobilers, that could be rescued if pinpointed early.
        [the hunter instinct lives on!]

      • ECA says:

        They re-evaluated Yellowstone..
        eruptions occur <300,000 years and we are LATE..

    • Cerberus says:

      “Idiots and idiocy are, at best, shallow thinkers who believe everything they’re told at face value, ”

      I’d say that sums up the definition for about 144 million, wouldn’t you agree?
      Let’s see, there’s simpleton, nitwit, nincompoop, booby, very foolish or stupid person.
      Yep, sums it up for me.

      “I question the universal common ancestor, ”

      It’s a good thing to ask questions because questioning helpful in the authentication of facts.
      But, just as predicted, it has been shown through DNA sequencing that all life on earth is related, however distant. Why else would a dogs DNA be 60% genetically identical to that of a human?
      How would you account for that?

      • Cerberus says:

        “Has any Neanderthal DNA ever been found? ”

        Yes. Just Google Neanderthal DNA, and see what the results are.
        Genetics has shown that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7% identical to modern human DNA, versus, 98.8% for modern humans and chimps.
        Have a good day, Rod.

  2. buckeyenonbeliever says:

    As I posted on Project Reason regarding this topic: Sadly, indoctrination trumps education for far too many. For so many children, they have been ingrained with this creationist drivel since before the age of reason. And the first culprits in this grand illusion are those that their world revolves around, those that they require for food, shelter and guidance in their formative years; their parents.

    Children are fed this nonsense by their protectors, their role models, their heros. And what is the consequence for these naive, innocent children for questioning the logic behind this creationist bullshit? How about an eternity of flames, gnashing of teeth, and unbearable tortures. Nice parenting. Sleep well young ones. Who needs to worry about imaginary monsters under the bed or in the closet?

    No one can convince me otherwise that this does not play a major role in so many believing in creationism well into their adult years in the face of so much rational and contradictory evidence available. This is why ALL religions try to recruit CHILDREN! Absolutely disgusting!!!

    • Agreed on all counts buckeyenonbeliever.

      The concept of hell is child abuse. Large sections of the bible are pornographic involving rape, incest, bestiality, and a number of other things that are probably not appropriate for children. The bible should not be read by anyone under the age of majority, whatever age we pick as the dividing line there.

      And, if hell isn’t enough to scare a child, consider the brayer* “Now I lay me down to sleep ….” Yikes! Not only would this make a child afraid to go to bed, it also wreaks havoc with the English language. While that use of the verb lay, which unlike lie takes an object, is technically correct, the object in this case is oneself. This can be confusing.

      This brayer is likely one of many causes of the misuse of lay without an object, such as “I am going to lay down now.” Really??!!? I’d like to see that! Let me get my camera. I’m expecting feathers, the object in this misuse of lay, to come out of the speaker’s ass.

      * brayer is a subtle reference to The Boomer Bible and is not original on my part.

      • ECA says:

        Problem tends NOT to be religion. AS I see nothing in it about WHAT WAS WHAT.
        I cant see HOW the idiots are making this stuff up.
        ALL I see in the Christian bible…
        History of the Jewish religion
        Laws of the Jewish faith
        The Prophet and his suggestions for living his OWN LIFE.(incomplete)
        Love explaining to CHRISTIANS, that the bible stories are ALL jewish history stories..

  3. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Evolution is an observable fact. The theory set by Darwin is of course subject to refinement, most recently by dna which was unknown to Darwin.

    I wrote more, but it got eaten. Tedious to type it all again. Perhaps later.

  4. buckeyenonbeliever says:

    Interestingly enough, I read an ABC news poll/survey today which claims 77% Americans believe we have been visited by alien life forms. Huh?

    How does that make sense? Do some of these creationist nutjobs also believe Gawd created aliens and forgot to tell us about them?

    And if life were to be discovered in our universe, how do the fundamentalists spin that in their worldview?

  5. Rod,

    I didn’t say DNA only evolved once since the big bang. I merely said that I see no reason to believe it evolved twice on this planet. If we ever get to Europa and can drill through the ice to the ocean below and do so without contaminating the ocean below and check for life underneath, it will be very interesting to see whether the life, if any, is DNA based.

    If it is, then we would need some explanation of why. Perhaps DNA is a particularly easy molecule to evolve from amino acids despite its complexity and very selective use of amino acids. (Note that amino acids were found on a comet.) Or, perhaps it would provide some support for the panspermia hypothesis.

    Right now, we can’t say a whole lot about origins of life.

    Biology is the study of life. But, the catch is that so far, we have just a single sample. It’s very hard to study life in the universe from a single occurrence thereof. I’ve even heard it said that biology is not a true science because there is only one instance of life to study. I don’t agree with this. But, it is true that we have no knowledge of other life in the universe.

    Will all life in our universe be DNA based?
    Will there be non-carbon based life?
    Will there be other multicellular life?
    Will there be any intelligent life in the universe?

    I’m not counting us as intelligent since the evidence against us being an intelligent species is mounting as we continue to take no action to prevent our self-destruction. Though, perhaps we can look to other life on this planet to find intelligence, whatever intelligence means. Perhaps we can look to the “make love not war” bonobos or to cetaceans or to any other species with a lot of brain capacity who are not destroying themselves.

    Whatever. Anyway, my claim was not about life in the universe all being DNA based and hence related, but just about the one instance of life we are sure exists at this time.


    Yup. Evolution is an observable fact. The theory of natural selection, one of the most tried and proven theories we have, explains the mechanism.


    It is indeed surprising how many people do not believe in evolution and other science but do believe everything from the X Files and that there are aliens in Area 51 and that we have never been to the moon.

    Here’s a cute comic regarding the lunar landing.


    Seriously though, we can still project a red laser at a particular point on the moon and record the time it takes to bounce back … FROM THE MIRROR THAT THE ASTRONAUTS LEFT THERE FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE. Yes. We have been to the moon.

    How is it that people seriously believe that the level of technology that gave us the original Star Trek series and all of its hokey special effects could produce a convincing hoax of having gone to the moon? Why would they not just use smoke and mirrors to “beam the astronauts to the moon” instead of bothering with a huge rocket launched from a public place to which people traveled just so that they could watch the enormous thing lift off?

    We the idiots in order to destroy a once great nation and race forward into the dark ages declare fact fiction and fiction fact. Amen.

  6. Rodnikov Magillovich says:

    Scott, the failure(s) you describe is that of LEADERSHIP! But when we have great leadership we tend to assassinate them! Not just Americans, the English have 7 times in their history snuffed their Monarch, too! but in the case of Bloody Mary [my many greats grandmother] it was a case of self preservation for many of them that participated!
    Much of these types of problems stem from Errors in Thinking which Yochelson and Bernstein so correctly documented in The Criminal Personality.
    Question: That third form of life found only in Earth’s Oceans [is neither Plant nor Animal] is it also DNA based? [I have forgotten what it is called at this moment….just a touch of “Sometimer’s” Disease this morning!]

    • Leadership? Really? I was thinking that the Christian Wrong has some excellent leadership. It’s just that they’re leading people toward stupidity and oblivion. But, they’re doing it amazingly well.

      I am not aware that any of the extremophiles are not considered plants or animals. But, keep in mind Fungi are their own category. And most bacteria do not fall into either the plant or animal kingdom.

      Note that the branches on this tree are proportional by number of species in the group and by proximity of relationship. So, plants, animals, and fungi are all closely related to each other. Further, they are a very small portion of life on this planet.

      (Courtesy of http://www.stephenjaygould.org/)

  7. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Scotty: “I’ve even heard it said that biology is not a true science because there is only one instance of life to study.” /// Even if you “heard” this, quoting such nonsense here does your blog a disservice.

    but tell us: is biology a science or not?

    • In my opinion, hell yes!! Biology is a science.

      But, my point in quoting that is to point out that we do only have the one instance of life to study. So, while we can make a very good and detailed study of the single instance of life on this planet in all its grandeur, we haven’t a fucking clue of what to expect elsewhere. Further, it makes it very difficult to predict how common the evolution of DNA in particular may be.

      It is my opinion, i.e. unapologetic wild assed guess, that life elsewhere would probably be based on some other replicating molecules. Why would RNA and DNA be the only molecules capable of reproducing? If nothing else, the obvious replacement of carbon with silicon would be just as good. Why not? And, that’s just an obvious case. I’m sure there are others that would be less so.

      Oh, and bobbo, if you had bothered to quote me with just a bit more context, you would not have had to ask your question. Here is what you quoted with just a single sentence past that, emphasis added. Did you really need to ask my opinion of whether biology is a science? No.

      I’ve even heard it said that biology is not a true science because there is only one instance of life to study. I don’t agree with this.

      Oh, and don’t be judgmental about how I write my blog. You can write yours however you like. It does not diminish my blog to express my opinion, especially when clearly stated as such. That’s the whole fucking point of blogging.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Scott: Let me show you how to do it: Scott–you are right, I failed to notice your disclaimer and would have posted differently had I paid better attention.

        Still a puzzle to me why you would post something you disagree with and is irrelevant for a point that does not express your opinion?

        Rather a weak opinion. If we find life elsewhere based on replicated silicon, then we will only have life established based on carbon and silicon. You have an position based on reductio absurdum like the anti-evolutionists always complaining there are missing links not seeing the bigger picture.

        Aren’t we all free to comment and post as we desire? – – or is this amount of Blog Management Discretion gone to your head? Or does your fucking point only apply to you?

        Yes, exactly how does a blog become diminished?

        Ha, ha. All heat, and no light.

      • Of course my opinion on what other life will be like is weak. We’ve got nothing to go on. I just see no reason to expect it to be exactly the same as life here, i.e. DNA based.

        I brought up a point I disagree with to show that there is reason to question what exactly we’re studying in biology. Perhaps a more accurate term for our science of biology is the science of terrestrial biology.

        As for how a blog is diminished, that’s for you to explain. You made the silly-assed comment that stating my own opinion, and even clearly acknowledging it is opinion rather than fact, somehow does my blog a disservice.

        Why don’t you explain what the hell you meant by that?

        Or, better yet, just retract the statement and argue with me over the points I make without judging the effect of my opinion on my own blog.

  8. Rodnikov Magillovich says:

    Just for the record, biology is in fact at least 2 Sciences: Botany and Zoology, plus what ever else that life form that is niether in our Oceans that is being studied!

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      I’ll let you think more on that one.

      • Rodnikov Magillovich says:


        for you to think about booboo!

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Good Job! … Better than Thinking – – you actually looked up what you had already posted on and provided a LINK right on target.

        Then we only have to turn to linguistics. How accurate is it to say there are at least two sciences related to biology when there is only one science that covers the natural world and biology is immediately divided up into about as many disciplines we want to name?

        Hey—just being pissy….. because I love words—AND science ===but not formal punctuation.


      • All science is about the natural world, or more accurately, the natural universe. Geology is also about the natural world. So is physics. Cosmology is about the natural universe.

        Topics regarding the supernatural are rightly not called science.

        I also love science. Too bad the word scientology has been coopted to mean nonsense and nonscience rather than the study of the different applications of the scientific method found in the different sciences. Scientology should have meant the study of the sciences, comparing and contrasting their fields and the necessary methods to extract information from the universe at large and its various sub-components.

        Oh well, in software, methodology has not come to mean the study of software development methods but instead refers to particular methods used.

        I hate it when the right word gets coopted for a wrong meaning.

        Imagine if sexist meant one who believes in sex and possibly even worships the idea rather than one who believes that the different sexes should have different rights. Sexist could have been used to indicate a religion of people who follow the Kama Sutra, for example.

    • Rod,

      As with other sciences, biology has sub-specializations. What point are you making by pointing out that there are subtopics withing the field of biology? Just curious.

      • Rodnikov Magillovich says:

        Well thinking of it that way, I am suggesting that Botany and Zoology ought to have equal billing with Physics and Chemistry. Yet Mathematics is involved in all of the others, but is also a stand alone. Plus there is Physical Chemistry, Chemical Physics, and Bio-Chemistry, ad nauseum!
        Does there need to be a hierarchy? You tell me!

        [tomorrow I will be at a different address for a bit, but will keep track of the proceedings!]

      • There are certainly multi-disciplinary sciences. And, they are on the increase. So, you make a good point that there need not be a hierarchy. However, there are some cases where one science does fit in neatly as a subset of a larger discipline.

        In fact, chemistry is one. Chemistry is a proper subset of physics. It is actually part of physics. Few actually look at it that way. But, it is true.

        Chemistry is merely the physics of objects in a particular size range and how they interact.

        In fact, I wonder if one could consider biology to be a subset of physics as well. Biological organisms behave within physical laws. I’d have to think about this some more. Certainly, the interactions in biology fall into a new class, though they follow the laws of physics. Biological interactions are far more complex than any other physical interactions, especially with larger multicellular organisms, particularly those with highly complex brains. Hmm…

        Mathematics though is actually not a science. It is used by a great many sciences. But, there is no scientific method involved in mathematics. It can all be done on paper and with thought. It is only later that people find ways in which mathematics can relate to the real world. And, whether or not mathematics has any application in any of the sciences, the math is still valid.

  9. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    You mean…… its all……… definitional?

    Why does mathematics “describe” physics so well? Physics is math driven more than the other disciplines/applications/areas of study within science so much so that mathematical operations of infinity and zero makes some physicists sound a bit wacky.

    Didn’t Einstein say something about math and physics/life/universe/god?

    The theory of everything is not physics – its math==to whatever degree they are different.

    • I don’t agree that mathematics describes physics at all. Physics uses mathematics for the equations that match the real world. Math can generate endless equations that do not match the real world.

      WARNING! From here down, this is only my opinion. String Theorists will likely disagree with this quite strongly. Please continue reading as if this warning were not here.

      Were mathematics to “describe” physics, String Hypothesis would already be a theory on par with relativity. As it is, there are 10500 possible solutions to the String Hypothesis equations. Out of all of those, it is possible that one actually does map to the real world.

      But, which one?

      This is crucial. Without knowing which equation out of the 10420 times the number of atoms in the observable universe equations is correct, String Hypothesis continues to tell us nothing. But, it is all valid math. And, people are learning a lot about mathematics by doing String Hypothesis.

      So, the one true solution to string hypothesis, if it exists, may actually describe physics, as you say. But, for mathematics in general to describe physics would be to posit that anything mathematically possible is physically possible. This is not the case.

      Therefore, as yet, string theorists are learning nothing about the observable universe but are instead expanding the field of mathematics. Perhaps one day, they will tell us a huge amount about the universe. That would be the point at which this transitions from pure mathematics to physics.

      Again, this is just my opinion. Those working on string hypothesis are still very much considered physicists. Perhaps that is because they do check their results against the physical world instead of only determining whether the math is valid. This alone should indicate that valid math need not describe real world physics.

  10. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Your opinion is only good in this universe. According to math, there are an infinity of other universes with different rules of physics. And thats the whole point. Each of those 10×240 equations accurately describe an infinity of universes that are out there – just not ours.

    Amusingly, in none of those universes must anyone post that what they think is only their opinion.

    • My opinion is not even good in that much of this universe.

      The correct number again, is 10^500. The other number I gave was just to put that one in perspective. There are 10^80 atoms in the observable universe. So, the number of solutions to the string hypothesis equations is 10^420 times the number of atoms in the observable universe (10^420 * 10^80 == 10^500). That should strike you as a very large number … because it is. I wanted to emphasize how difficult it may be to pick the right set of equations out of such a mass of possibilities.

      You take it on faith that each of these sets of equations describes a real universe. You can’t know that. No testable prediction is made by that assumption.

      Leonard Suskind agrees with you. You might like his book “Cosmic Landscape”. He states that if it is true that each of the solutions to string hypothesis actually describes a real universe, a big if, it means that we could use the anthropic principle to explain why our universe is conducive to life, if we think it is. Personally, I see this planet as fairly hostile to life. More than 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. And yet, this is a particularly good place to live. Most of space is nearly empty, with just a few atoms per cubic meter and a temperature of 2.3 degrees kelvin. Brrr. Not much of this universe is actually conducive to life.

      But, you must remember that there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe that there are all of these universes. There is not one shred of evidence for them.

      In fact, the only difference between the plethora of universes hypothesized by some and the god hypothesis is that the plethora of universes does not require a belief in the supernatural.

      So, while it sounds good to think of all of these universes and is very popular to think about them, stating that they really exist is a tad premature. I know of just one hypothesis of a multi-verse that made testable predictions. It was a particularly appealing version. I liked it a lot. However, when a testable prediction it made was tested and failed, the author of the hypothesis immediately recognized that his hypothesis was incorrect and stated so publicly. I have a lot of respect for Lee Smolin for doing so.

      As for a requirement to state that my opinion is opinion, you among a few others have challenged me to come up with supporting links for my opinions when I did not. So, since my opinion has no support, I wanted to be clear that I was only stating opinion, not fact. So, I disagree with your assertion. In this universe, it is often a good idea to be clear about whether you believe your words to be fact or opinion whenever it may not be obvious.

      Certainly, you cannot know how intelligent creatures must speak and/or write in other universes. So, your flippant attempt at humor regarding customs in other universes, while mildly amusing as intended, is blatantly false. And, I’m just the kind of geek to point that out, however ridiculous it is to do so.

  11. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Well, if you and I agree Scotty, then what respect can we show to “Theoretical Physics” and Math? Starts to make us sound like Science Deniers? – or – the unfathomable de linking from human experience with the nature of an infinity of time and space? … kinda mind blowing that concept can even be reduced to a simple number 8 laid on its side?

    Such is the power of symbolism and symbolic thought. Hmmm … opinions about “values” and preferences quite distinct from opinions about factual issues. Are you double dog sure about a request for links regarding a pure non fact oriented opinion? Maybe so, not often enough to reference it though, if I am allowed to disagree….

    Ha, ha — I’m imagining the think tank at the next physics symposium: “Looking for 8,999,999,999 idiots who do not believe in string theory. Its the human in all of us.

    • It’s not denying science to recognize the difference between our most tried and proven theories, like relativity, quantum mechanics, and natural selection and our hypotheses that may or may not one day be proven like string hypothesis and loop quantum gravity. Physicists know that these cutting edge attempts at a theory of everything (TOE) or grand unified theory (GUT) are as yet unproven.

      When a theory is proven, it mostly shifts from the realm of theoretical physics to the realm of engineering. There are still some predictions of relativity that are only now being proven, such as frame dragging, which was just proved recently due to the difficulty in producing equipment sensitive enough to perform the test.

      But, relativity is used in GPS systems created by engineers.

      Quantum mechanics is used in semiconductors to make computers.

      Natural selection is used in medicine to understand drug resistance.

      See how that works? I believe in theoretical physics. I believe that both theoretical and experimental physicists working together is the only chance we have at understanding the pieces of the physical universe still left unexplained by current theory. I am just not ready to call an unproven hypothesis a theory … precisely because that causes confusion to lay people who begin to say stupid things like “evolution is just a theory.”

      JUST A THEORY??!!?

      Theories are our most tried and proven explanations for the natural world! I want that to be understood as clearly as possible by the lay people of the world. It is not. And, one of the reasons it is not is because we call string hypothesis a theory long before there is any proof of it.

  12. Rodnikov Magillovich says:

    Scott, it is my hypothesis that if the multi-verse exist, they are unobservable since they are on what I call another polarization where they cannot be seen. (According to math, there are an infinity of other universes with different rules of physics), if bobbu can be quoted as correct in spite of his persnickety arrogance!

    And another point, Chemistry uses Math as much or more than Physics. It just relies on it in a different way.

    So if Math is not a Science, why does it not qualify, especially when it comes to mensuration! This is the basis of all Science!

  13. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    So if Math is not a Science, why does it not qualify, especially when it comes to mensuration! /// Its definitional

    …..and googling, I find it is called a science in many of the definitions. Science is often defined as the study of the natural world but this is often in the context of a discussion regarding religion. Really fubar the subject to throw in “abstract science” including the study of the relationships between sets?

    AMUSING! I always say everything is definitional, then if I’m feeling a bit persnickety (but never arrogant), or if I’m mensurating (but never when I’m on the rag) I’ll throw in that the definitions are further refined, and must be understood: IN CONTEXT.

    It is thereby most refreshing to find yet another example of just how right I am. And thats not being arrogant, just the measurement of things.

    Ha, ha.

  14. Rod and bobbo,

    Math can be valid regardless of whether it maps to the real world. This is fundamentally different from science, which is thrown out when it does not map to the real world or universe.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      mathematics plural of math·e·mat·ic

      1. The abstract science of number, quantity, and space.
      2. The mathematical aspects of something: “the mathematics of general relativity”.

      I didn’t think math was “part of” science when I checked myself with the authority of a dictionary. Am I wrong to touch base with third party authority over my own bent twig?

  15. Rodnikov Magillovich says:

    I always thought of it as a Science, and since it is an integral part of all other Sciences, how an it not be….
    Now it is your turn, Scott, to precisely explain why it should not be a SCIENCE!

  16. I find it interesting that the definition of mathematics calls it a science. So, I guess I’ll have to admit that by some definition, it is. But, riddle me this Batman, why is it that mathematics makes no use of the scientific method?


    Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

    And, since I’ve already stated that I believed math not to be science because of its validity even when it fails to describe the universe in which we live, why did you not address that issue?

    What does it mean for mathematics to be an “abstract science”?

    Given the definition of the scientific method, how can a science be abstract? How would there be any empirical and measurable evidence? (10^500) – 1 solutions to string hypothesis are mathematically correct and empirically invalid descriptions of our universe. In fact, it is possible that none of the solutions are correct.

    So, how are the incorrect but mathematically valid solutions science?

    Yes, it’s true that science needs mathematics. But, there is much in mathematics that fails to describe our world while being perfectly valid math. To me, mathematics is a highly valuable tool required by science, but is not science in and of itself. This takes nothing away from mathematics as an incredibly important field.

    You’ve given me a lot to think about. I need to consider this further. I think you should too.

  17. Here’s a bit more that may be more conclusive.


    From the second paragraph on the page:

    In modern use, “science” more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is “often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use.”

    Again, mathematics is a wonderful thing! In some ways, it is better than science because while science is generally validated by making testable predictions that prove true but that a single failure may one day prove false, mathematics is demonstrably true in a more absolute sense. That said, science describes the universe using only a subset of all valid mathematics.

  18. Rodnikov Magillovich says:

    The Scientific Method Steps does not require or rule out Math!

    Abstract Thinking:

    (this is a rather long link)

    Bottom line thoughts are, I believe that since Math is integral to all of the legitimate Sciences and Co-Sciences, and is the means by which they function, it too is a Co-Science, yet has branches and uses that are less than Scientific.
    As in Baseball, simple Math is used to score the game, but it is also a game of statistics, especially ratios, plus predictability. eg. Hose Bautista is on a pace to hit 54 Homers this season, now that he has his timing on track again. But history has shown that participation in the Home Run Derby can derail a player in the 2nd half of the season or intensify their pace. (stay tuned as they say!)
    In fact all sports require some amount of Math for the game or contest to function. Likewise, Science does not function without Math! Name me a legitimate Science that does not employ some level of Math! (watching Bonobos mate does not qualify!)

  19. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    ………..BECAUSE==its all definitional…. and definitional as a construct==abstract/symbolic in its own right>>not the real world, but something intangible created to represent “it.”

    Definitely Scott, and probably Rod as well, and we can never tell with ECA, you’all are thinking too concretely–to adverse to the slippery ambiguities of linguistics: “How do you think what you do and how do you change your mind?”

    Science is: blah, blah.
    Math is: blah, blah

    It you “think” one thing, that is your concrete setting up. These and all other things have a fairly well understood core but there are edges where it slops into other concepts ((making the definition CONTEXTUAL)) as well as a ying/yang phenomenon where to our consternation the thing itself appears to contain elements of its very opposite. These attributes gain force as one moves away from that solid core. Iffy and argumentative (definitional) when referred to only in the abstract.

    Yes, read a disinterested consensus of the experts involved: THE DICTIONARY. Read the plain definition. Then continue on as if you haven’t been given the information. Tell others to think more about it. Then make fun of other people who do the same thing with “The Origin of Species.”

    “Give them books….and they eat the covers.”

    • Yes, read a disinterested consensus of the experts involved: THE DICTIONARY. Read the plain definition.

      Ah … but which dictionary? What do you do when the dictionaries disagree? The O.E.D. did not agree with your definition. Which dictionary do you trust?

  20. Rod,

    I think you’re arguing from a converse. Instead of looking at what the scientific method rules out, you’re supposed to be looking at the way math makes use of the scientific method. Oh yeah. It doesn’t.

    From your first link:

    • Ask a Question
    • Do Background Research
    • Construct a Hypothesis
    • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment [– When is this step ever performed in math?]
    • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
    • Communicate Your Results

    Mathematics in integral to science. But, it is not in itself a science. If it were, much of mathematics would be thrown out as inapplicable to the real world, as were phlogiston chemistry and alchemy.

    Actually, watching bonobos mate does qualify as science, specifically zoology, and does require mathematics, average number of matings per day, average duration of mating, all sorts of statistics can be generated. A wildlife watcher/voyeur such as myself may simply sit back and watch and photograph the show. But, a scientist is taking notes and is making observations and is using math to evaluate the results.

    Still though, you’ve got it backwards. You need to argue not that science uses math but that math is itself a science even when not being used by one of the sciences, even when it has no relevance to the real world. The square root of negative one has a lot of meaning in mathematics and is a valid concept. But, in the real world/universe, we know of no application of this imaginary number.

    I’m just not seeing that math on its own is a science.

    BTW, I checked the reference for the quote I posted earlier. According to wikipedia, it’s a quote from the Oxford English Dictionary. So, to repeat that quote:

    In modern use, “science” more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is “often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use.”

    Mathematicians do not pursue their knowledge via the scientific method. This takes nothing away from mathematics. I could easily argue that it is a strength mathematics has that science does not.

    Science models the real world or it gets thrown out. All one needs to do to disprove any theory is find a case where it is wrong. The fact is that many of our scientific theories have been put to good use in engineering and have never been proven false within the realms they cover. But, science is empirical in its very core.

    Mathematics is demonstrably true via indisputable proofs. There is nothing empirical about it.

    So, keep in mind, I am not denigrating mathematics by saying it is not science. If anything, I’m putting it in even higher esteem than the extremely high esteem I have for science.

  21. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Which is the “right” dictionary?? Ha, ha. WHOoooooossshHHHH!==This is not a religious exercise. You read them all and appreciate the conflict, the width and breadth of the issue. You APPRECIATE the very fact that there is more than one definition. That was the whole point. “Its Definitional” MEANS there is more than one definition and each definition must be appreciated in its turn and added to the consideration.

    Define: Math.
    Define: Science
    Define: Definition.

  22. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:


  23. Well bobbo,

    I will add this. If the scientific method is not required to make something a science, what stops intelligent design from being a science?

  24. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Scotty—I’m not a scientist. All I do is watch tv and google for recreation. I’m but a one note pony telling everyone that we live in a meaningless universe which by that very fact allows each and every thinking sentient being the ability to appreciate whatever meaning to their own lives they wish to give.

    That said, one commonality of science and math and NOT to ID is that the former two are falsifiable whereas the latter is not.

    Recall–I said initially I also thought that math was not science as science deals with the natural world whereas math is abstract.

    Amusingly, science looks for proof but definitionally can never establish it whereas math is the only discipline that proved “proof” as it is various defined. Everything is definitional.

    You need more jello in your diet.

    xxxxx I think “math” would disprove that math is science whereas science cannot do that. How mathematical is your thinking? “if = then”. Math is an abstraction, pure logic. Logic does not establish truth, only proof.

    ……. and all thats left is a smile.

  25. bobbo,

    In between your grammar and punctuation, you make some good points.

    You’re probably correct that if math were an intelligent being, it would be offended at being called science. Only math can be shown to be Correct with a capital C by virtue of its rigorous standards for mathematical proofs.

    It is likely also true that science, if ti were an intelligent being, would be in awe of the proof standards for math while still looking down its nose at the wide range of mathematics that tells us nothing about the actual universe in which we live. The empirical nature of science, while less definitive than a mathematical proof, keeps science firmly grounded, so to speak, in our actual observable universe. What sounds nice and plausible and even elegant is quickly thrown away the second it is proven not to apply in the cold hard universe.

    Intelligent Design, on the other hand, can easily be shown to fly up its own asshole in the logical fallacy and endless recursion of attempting to explain the complexity of the universe by first postulating the preexisting complexity of some creator. The fact that its falsity does not cause people to drop it on its pointy little head shows that it is anything but science.

    Of course, some idiot may choose to point out the failed doctrine of “divine simplicity”, a kluge to the god hypothesis sometimes used to contradict that god is complex and therefore requires explanation. But, divine simplicity instantly renders any creator omniabsent, omnignorant, and omnimpotent simultaneously. What’s the point of postulating a god that is free of existence, i.e. does not exist? Read that divine simplicity link if you’re looking for a great laugh. My favorite line:

    Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter/form composition, potency/act composition, and existence/essence composition.

    This leaves me almost literally rolling on the floor laughing my ass off every time I read it. It’s amazing what people will come up with to say that one can’t prove god doesn’t exist. Well, if you define your god as “free of existence”, I don’t need to. You did.

    Sorry for that aside, but not very sorry. I didn’t want to hope someone would randomly bring it up on my site again. It was just too funny not to re-share. I don’t remember the thread on which someone brought this up before.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      I am also “free” of grammar and punctuation. I live outside of those constraints. …. Evidently, you do not appreciate these gifts.

      One of your best responses in a long time. Fun to read how the language/precepts of the two disciplines interact/compliment/conflict with one another. I’ve been having visions of Venn Diagrams:

      Two circles with an area of overlap. One is science, the other is math. Lots of overlap but still some separate areas for each. Surely, NO ONE would disagree with that?

      So, by definition I’m back to thinking “all” the dictionaries that call math a science are wrong. Nothing represented by overlapping Venn Circles “is” one thing. By definition, they are two separate things with lots of overlap/commonalities. Close, but no cigar.

      Isn’t “abstract science” but an oxymoronic joke? A lexicographers joke at the expense of the public? A god free of existence? I think so.

      So, what we have is the tyranny of the misinformed, of the majority. How helpful is it to picture a Venn diagram of one circle labeled science with two main divisions of material science and abstract science? How is any such Venn Diagram not actually more accurately written as those two famous overlapping circles?

      TV news show last night making fun (Chris Hayes) of Mitt Romney’s “use of Venn Diagrams” where the two circles appear but the overlap is the difference in tax burden between the ObamaCare and Not Obamacare. Hayes makes fun that the Venn Diagram is not showing the overlap but rather showing the difference: “something you can’t do with Venn Diagrams. Hmmmmmm…..I thought. Well–what you have there is a pictorial representation of the subjects as stated with two overlapping diagrams….but they (by definition) are not Venn Diagrams as they are not representational of the relationships between two sets. They are representational of something else.

      Even someone as academically and skilled as Chris Hayes is transfixed by his lack of dictionary power. Power I tell you. POWER to rule the intellectual universe!!—or, mere building blocks.

      Its all definitional.

  26. Abstract science … yes … that does sound like an oxymoron. I’ll list it right next to jumbo shrimp and military intelligence. I don’t always see everything you claim fits into Venn Diagrams the way you do. But, I’ll leave that as a minor and moot point.

    Regarding Mitt Romney vs. ObamaCare, have you seen the John Stewart take on the subject?


  27. Back on the topic of the 46% of Americans (actually United Statesians since people in Brazil, Peru, Cuba, Mexico, and Canada, to name a few, are equally American though probably have a lower percentage of idiots of this particular type), 54% of United Statesians would now vote for a qualified atheist for president. This is unprecedented in modern times in this first constitutionally secular nation of the world.


    So, my question is whether it’s a coincidence that the numbers 46% (those who don’t believe in evolution) and 54% (those who would consider voting for an open atheist for president) just happen to add up to 100%?

    Certainly, there are polling margins of error. So, it may not be exactly 100% when we sum the numbers. But, the fact that these two segments of the population just happen to add up to around 100% is pretty mind-boggling to me. Can it really be that everyone who believes in evolution, even if they believe one or more gods guided the process, would vote for an atheist and that no one who completely disbelieves evolution would vote for an atheist?

    I bet it is that simple.

  28. Rodnikov Magillovich says:

    In a related but extraneous piece of news today in Canada, a poll taken recently says that 7 out of 8 Canadians would vote for Obama instead of Romney! This is misleading since almost no Canadian has experienced living in the American situation and being affected by the day to day of that government! It does show how much more left leaning Canadians are versus Americans, though!

    • ECA says:

      Lets see…LEFt as in ??
      I know RIGHT, tends to be religious..and HOW far you want to go there..
      Which is amazing as 1 side ends to totalitarian(all government) and the OTHER is Government as Socialist(all government), THATS the way they see it anyway..

      • Rodnikov Magillovich says:

        Right as in Conservative penny pincherism, and Left as in Tax & Spend. WE Canadians do not generally have the religious bent that Americans do. Conservatism is not synonymous with wing nut religious bible thumperism! It is gauche to wear your religion on your sleeve in Canada, which is also why some of our recent immigrants are not being welcomed!

      • We don’t have any conservatives here in the U.S. We have a choice between tax and spend (on war and corporate welfare) or borrow and spend (on war and corporate welfare). Other differences are very minor. Unfortunately, it’s all we have to go on. In fact, we have so little difference between the parties that we must make shit up, like rehashing the ancient and already settled issues of abortion and birth control. Or, fighting to prevent gay marriage, which would add $3 billion a year to the economy from the increase in weddings.

        BTW, the so-called liberals (since there really are very few of us true liberals, so few that the Liberal party died) are actually more fiscally conservative than the so-called conservatives (since we have so few true conservatives that nearly everyone has forgotten the meaning, resistant to change as opposed to radical right wing and fiscally responsible as opposed to deliberately bankrupting the government).

        The so-called liberals are actually more fiscally responsible for at least recognizing that the bills must be paid. To wage a $3 trillion war with no increase in taxes, no cuts in services, no cuts in corporate welfare, and not even paid for by patriotic Americans buying “victory bonds” but rather to mortgage the country to China is not exactly fiscally responsible.

        Now we’ve got Romney saying he wants to keep all of the provisions of Obamacare except for the one that covers how the bills will be paid. Is that anyone’s idea of conservatism?

        It ain’t mine.

  29. Even Obama isn’t left. The fact that he appears so is only by comparison. Check out this election’s political compass.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: