Would Charles Darwin Have Made a Good Congressman?

sciencehabit writes "It's a good 130 years too late to answer that question empirically, but at least symbolically Charles Darwin has won support from more than 4000 voters in the 10th congressional district of Georgia, thanks to an initiative headed by James Leebens-Mack, a plant biologist at the University of Georgia in Athens. Like many others, Leebens-Mack was deeply troubled by a speech his Congressman, Paul Broun (R-GA), gave at an Athens church in October deriding teachings on evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory as 'lies straight from the pit of Hell.' Broun, a medical doctor, is a member of the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and chair of its Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Leebens-Mack says the 'protest vote should make it clear to future opponents that there are a lot of people in the district who are not happy with antiscience statements.'"

Comments

We can't have good people

[Anonymous Coward]

It all comes down to this:

Why doesn't Leebens-Mack run against Broun himself in 2014? "I am a scientist, not a politician," he says. "I enjoy my job as a plant biologist. It would be too big a sacrifice to give that up to run for Congress."

Who doesn't feel the same way? That's not quite rhetorical; turns out you probably know someone who doesn't agree with that. But they're also someone you probably don't like, aren't they?

Re:We can't have good people

[TheRaven64]

Part of the problem is that politics is now a career. I wouldn't mind doing the job for a year, maybe two if I could do it part time - say two days a week so I could keep doing stuff that's actually interesting as well. There's no way I'd want to spend even five years, let alone the 20-30 that most politicians seem to have to put in.

Re:We can't have good people

[cyberjock1980]

Exactly. That tells me that the politicians know the grass is greener where they are. Let's face it, they get a lot of amazing perks just for being a politician. I'm pretty confident those perks are more substantial than you and I think and those perks make working as a career politician far more lucrative than the "measly" job you and I have. And if you knew those perks were for the rest of your life, wouldn't you be willing to lie to a few people, maybe bend or break some rules, to enjoy those perks?

Yep.. those politicians know the secret sauce to success in this life.

Re:We can't have good people

[hey!]

Actually, the job of Congressman is crap; you get egoboo but you're a slave to fundraising and spend as much or more time in shabby political boiler room offices calling around begging for money as you do in your nice government office. It's stunningly degrading, and the average person wouldn't be able to stand it. You probably helps to be a major attention-hound, but it still stinks. It's much better when you get out of Congress and become a lobbyist who can afford to screen his calls.

Re:We can't have good people

[ShoulderOfOrion]

Actually, that's my opinion of how Congress should work. It should be like jury duty--your name is called at random from a nationwide pool of eligible voters to serve in Congress for a year or two. You, and the baker from Queens, and the auto mechanic from Des Moines, and the mini-mart owner from Phoenix, etc. You're there as often as the current Congress is. Your job is to pass the important legislation, balance the budget, and monitor and fund (or defund) the other two branches as necessary. Accepting money from lobbyists would be a serious crime. The sooner you get the job done, the sooner you get to go home.

I'd be willing to bet the result would be better all around.

Re:We can't have good people

[kanweg]

I'd rather have that baker bake and that mechanic repair cars. Would you want an unqualified person to do your job? The problem is that you can become a politician without qualifications. They don't need a pass a test to show they're capable of logical reasoning, have a modicum of knowledge etc.

Bert

Re:We can't have good people

[TheLink]

Still better than President of the USA.

1) One of the most dangerous jobs in the world - 9% die for job related reasons (get killed).
2) Almost everyone blames you for everything even though you don't actually have that much power.

Re:We can't have good people

[Jedi Alec]

You make a decent argument, and then provide the best reason why it is flawed.

If the current crop of politicians, who are mostly lawyers, are clearly and demonstrably unable to do a proper job, how do you know the baker and the mechanic won't do a better one?

Besides, politicians have to pass a lot of tests. The thing is that the electorate chooses to test on incredibly important subjects such as hair, teeth, flagpin wearing and the ability to spout immense amounts of bullshit instead of looking at minor details such as principles, realism and actual good ideas.

Let's face it, even if someone who is clearly principled and who actually tells the truth were to run, he/she wouldn't stand a chance. We don't want "leaders" who tell us the truth, we want ones that tell us that we're the ones doing just fine and everything would be peachy if it weren't for $them.

Re:We can't have good people

[__aaltlg1547]

The job of Congressman is crap only if you're running for reelection.

Re:We can't have good people

[cyberjock1980]

It sure is a crappy job, but hey, for $450k salary for LIFE, wouldn't you do a crappy job for 4 years? I sure as hell would. I'd even lie and tell everyone how awesome it was for that kind of pay! I don't know too many people that wouldn't be dishonest for 4 years for that kind of money, and that's the crappy reality of it.

As much as I'd like to think I'm an honest and trustworthy person who would do the right thing, I think Presidents try to do the right thing. But at the same time there's limits(especially on your time).

We as Americans need to actually realize that the President is more of a figurehead than anything and start holding the Congress responsible.

Re:We can't have good people

[Hognoxious]

I can't find the original quote, but anyone who doesn't want political power should be obliged to have it.

Re:We can't have good people

[TheLink]

For much lower risk and stress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives#Salaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension

Rational

[RichMan]

Informed and educated opinions leading to decisions do not work with without rational politicians.
A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens.

The first thing I would want in a politician is that they are rational.
If they are corrupt then ok, we have to figure out what motivates them and we can work with it.

Re:Rational

[PraiseBob]

And therein the problem: What rational person would go through the political process, where they are attacked relentlessly for months, with political teams spending millions of dollars to damage their reputation, digging up every skeleton in their closet, casting them as some type of dangerous idiot, and trying to turn a person's community against them?

That kind of job description has a hard time getting rational applicants who aren't motivated by goals of personal power.

Re:Rational

[Em Adespoton]

Informed and educated opinions leading to decisions do not work with without rational politicians.
A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens.

The first thing I would want in a politician is that they are rational.
If they are corrupt then ok, we have to figure out what motivates them and we can work with it.

It doesn't matter if a politician is rational -- he represents a group of people with diverse interests. Therefore, he must behave irrationally or be voted out in the next election. This is what we get by having career politicians. If it was non-professional, we'd have people running for a single term, pissing the majority of their constituents off, but actually accomplishing at least part of their agenda. I'm not sure which system I'd prefer.

Re:Rational

[TheCarp]

No it hasn't, maybe you didn't notice, he said democracy.... what does that have to do with the past 230 years?

Re:Rational

[AthanasiusKircher]

A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens. ... The first thing I would want in a politician is that they are rational.

Obviously a lot of your fellow citizens don't agree with you, or else they have a different definition of "rationality."

The fundamental problem lies the morons who vote wackos into office in the first place. Which might lead to questioning of the assumption of a functional democracy -- is that even a rational possibility? Unless we're going to require a logic test before certifying anyone's ability to vote, the most rational people in a society will always be subject to the tyranny of the less rational majority.

That's actually the definition of a functional democracy. Now, if you want a representative republic with all sorts of checks against the irrational masses, as the Founders started with, maybe you could start working toward rationality in politics.

Re:Rational

[s73v3r]

If it was non-professional, we'd have people running for a single term, pissing the majority of their constituents off, but actually accomplishing at least part of their agenda

Not necessarily. It takes time to figure out how to get stuff done in Congress. By the time most of them have figured it out, their term would be up.

Re:Rational

[TubeSteak]

And therein the problem: What rational person would go through the political process,

Someone who thinks they can make a change.
The 2010 batch of Tea Party representitives are a good example.
Despite holding political views way out in the fringe, they ran for office because they thought they could make a change.
They have: they've repeatedly stymied the Democratic agenda and, on more than one ocassion, have tripped up the Republican agenda too.
And I wouldn't call them irrational. Within their framework of ideas, they are very rational actors.

Elizabeth Warren is another example of a well meaning person who went through a bruising political fight to get a Senate seat.
She created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Republicans refused her nomination to head the agency,
so she ran for the Senate in Massachussetts.

Re:Rational

[Nemyst]

You reap what you sow, in other words?

Re:Rational

[MightyMartian]

If you start from fundamentally rational positions you cannot be considered a rational actor. You may be considered consistent, but not rational.

Re:Rational

[phantomfive]

Most of the conflict in politics isn't about rationality, it comes from disagreeing desires. Some people want to have universal healthcare, others don't. There's nothing particularly rational about either one, it's about what people want.

Re:Rational

[RazorSharp]

Some people want to have universal healthcare, others don't. There's nothing particularly rational about either one, it's about what people want.

There is something particularly ethical about universal healthcare and something completely immoral about a first world nation treating healthcare as a commodity. A good moral code is rational. Hence, universal healthcare is rational and our current system is not.

Re:Rational

[phantomfive]

No doubt, it is always possible for people to come up with post facto reasoning to support their desires, like you have just done.

Re:Rational

[beelsebob]

Most of the conflict in politics isn't about rationality, it comes from disagreeing desires. Some people want to have universal healthcare, others don't. There's nothing particularly rational about either one, it's about what people want.

See... This is why the debate is off the rails in America.

There absolutely is something rational about wanting universal health care. A healthy population is one that can work, and can stimulate the economy, so there's clearly a vested interest in being able to get all citizens as healthy as possible. It's been demonstrated in tons of other places that nationalised health care is a much more effective, and much cheaper way of achieving this. So yeh, it really is rational to want nationalised health care.

Re:Rational

[Patch86]

It is rational to point out that the US healthcare system was one of the most expensive per-head in the world, one of the least efficient per-dollar in the world, and had one of the lowest coverages in the world. Championing a policy of reform to solve those issues is rational.

Arguing "keep the gubbermint oudda my life!" as a reason to not reform it is ideological and irrational.

Re:Rational

[Jedi Alec]

There's nothing particularly rational about either one, it's about what people want.

Actually, there is, and the same applies to a lot of other subjects, like for example drug prohibition.

There are plenty of different systems and methods that demonstrably do or do not work. It really isn't all that hard to look at them and point that out. There's nothing wrong with deliberately choosing not to use a system that works for reasons of principle, but in that case we could at least be honest and consistent about it.

If a nation or a state chooses to make health insurance optional, based on principles of freedom and individual responsibility, then do it properly. Let the corpses of those who were stupid or irresponsible pile up outside the ER for all to see.

Same thing with drug prohibition. It demonstrably doesn't work, it costs tons of money and there's a remarkable correlation between wanting to forbid it and believing in invisible men in the sky, so let's at least have some *honest* reasons why it should be disallowed.

Re:Rational

[eddy the lip]

This is something I have never understood. What's good for the economy is a healthy workforce; with enough money to spend (but not so much that they can squirrel it away where it does nothing); the ability to get your kids an education (for the next round of workers); making sure those with power, be it political or financial, are kept in check (to maintain the level playing field so important to vibrant capitalism) and keeping the commons intact so that it can continue to be used.

Absolutely none of those are priorities of the right, and yet it's liberals that are supposed to be bad for the economy?

(Grammar nazis will have to accept the horrible abuse of the semi-colon.)

Re:Rational

[phantomfive]

there's a remarkable correlation between wanting to forbid it and believing in invisible men in the sky, so let's at least have some *honest* reasons why it should be disallowed.

Oh yeah? Let's see your data on this, because it sounds like something you just made up. There are plenty of druggies who believe in god. Making up data is irrational.

Healthcare: there are definitely people who would prefer to let people die in the streets. You are mistaking 'current system' for 'system people want.' The current system is a compromise, and few people like it.

Re:Rational

[phantomfive]

Keeping the government out of your life is a desire. People have that desire, and they choose policies which they believe will lead to that goal.

Trying to get the highest coverage in the world is a desire. It is not rational, it is a desire, but people who have that desire can make rational choices to achieve that goal.

Re:Rational

[phantomfive]

OK, be honest now, did you want nationalized healthcare before you thought it would be good for the economy, or did you realize it would be better later on, as a justification for your desire for nationalized healthcare?

Re:Rational

[phantomfive]

Uh, believe it or not, in general all those things ARE priorities of the right. I don't know WHO you've been listening to that makes you think otherwise, but I'm willing to bet they're also telling you the right is racist.

Re:Rational

[beelsebob]

No, I already have nationalised health care, and have lived in countries which did not. I have many completely rational reasons for preferring the nationalised system. The economic arguments are just one of them, and the order that these arguments were realised in is irrelevant to how applicable they are.

Re:Rational

[beelsebob]

Well, that's kinda the point. If they're a priority of the right, and the right still doesn't want nationalised health care, despite economic and social arguments in favour of it, then they're not acting rationally, and I wouldn't elect them.

Re:Rational

[phantomfive]

That's what I thought, you were already in favor of it, and later accepted arguments that support it.

There are plenty of rational arguments against nationalized healthcare, but I won't bore you on a topic where you are unlikely to change your opinion. If you are interested, Milton Friedman has done a good job outlining the opposing arguments, you can look him up.

Re:Rational

[eddy the lip]

If those are the priorities of the right, they are poorly reflected in their actions.

Here in Canada, we have a government that is de-funding useful research programs, muzzling scientists, attempted to repeal banking regulations until the crisis hit (and then took credit for these same regulations keeping our economy from completely going down the toiltet), cutting education funding, reducing the government's ability to gather information about the populace so that informed decisions can be made...it's a long list.

In America, the right seems terribly interested in enacting policies that increase economic inequality, reduce oversight of corporations and generally make it easier for those with power and money to exploit everything around them.

You don't need anyone to tell you this, it's relatively obvious.

Re:Rational

[phantomfive]

I'll give you an example......What was Mitt Romney's plan for healthcare?

To repeal Obama's healthcare plan, and make a 'better' one. Obama ultimately took ideas from John McCain's healthcare plan.

One thing that confuses foreigners (maybe not you, though, I'm sure you're smarter), is the difference between federal and state funding. A citizen can completely oppose funding on education from the national government, and yet still favor increasing it on the state level, because he feels states can more effectively manage education. If you only hear the first part, and not the second part, then it might be confusing. The independence of the states sometimes confuses people looking in from the outside.

Re:Rational

[beelsebob]

Okay, so I went and looked up the talk, here's what I got from him:
1) "The spending for the provision of medical care inevitably leads to control over the fees that are charged for medical care"
This is simply false – a quick reccy at any other country with nationalised health care (I'm going to use the UK as my example, as I'm familiar with it, and because it's pretty much the poster child for nationalised health care), reveals that private health care providers are still going strong, and choosing their prices just fine. Proof by counter example. QED.
2) "Control over fees inevitably leads to control over the practices that are followed"
This is based on the false premise 1. This can further be seen by private health care providers in the UK freely offering all kinds of crazy treatments.
3) "If this trend continues, it inevitably leads to completely socialised medicine"
Okay, "if this trend continues" he's right, in that he has an implication in there, and the thing on the left is false, so the whole statement is true. It still means as much as "if this trend continues, god is a purple beech ball who squashes ants for a day job".
4) I believe this is against everyone's interests (paraphrasing)
Fair enough... lets find out why :)

[some retoric about the abolition of free trade, and the gvmnt taking over]
5) "There is nothing different about the move to replacing private voluntary medical arrangements with compulsory governmental arrangements"
False premise. No one is trying to replace anything. As again, evidenced by the abundance of private health care in the UK. It just happens that the majority consider the government provided health care to more than meet their needs and see no reason to have any more.
6) (paraphrasing) loads of people in the medical indurstry have moved us slowly towards more socialised health care, and care has improved. I believe that this is in spite of the move towards more socialised care, not because of it.
Fair enough, you're welcome to your opinion there, but the evidence shows a correlation between greater gvmnt involvement and increasing standards.
7) "The mayo clinic is a shining example of how medicine in the US might have evolved if it had not been for this".
Wait... last I checked the mayo clinic existed, it *has* developed that way, even with the gvmnt involvement.
8) I doubt the mayo clinic could have evolved if it were built 20-30 years later.
Fair enough, doubt, but you didn't provide any evidence for that.
9) If you look around the country at similar attempts, a few managed to survive
Okay, so doesn't that contradict your earlier assertion that it would be impossible to survive? Isn't only a few surviving entirely the norm for the free market – some survive, many don't, the ones that do are great at what they do.
[retoric about the evil gvmnt and dangling carrots at the loving business men]
10) I believe the gvmnt will effectively pump and dump the medical proffession.
Well, that's a nice belief you have there, but it's not what's happened in other countries, and even if it did happen, then the private healthcare providers would flourish due to the gvmnt providing a crappy service. The only way this can make sense is if you use the false premise that the gvmnt running health care causes all other private providers to be extinguished, which gets us back to 1) again. It's simply false.
11) Uses the UK as an example, states that the UK would spend more on medical care if it did not have a state system.
Well duh... that's entirely the point. A nationalised system gets you the care needed, for everyone, and costs you less. He should not be measuring the amount of money spent, he should be measuring the care provided. I can't honestly see how he's used "the UK gets cheaper health care than we do" as an example to support the system you have!
12) There are fewer beds in the NHS in 1978 than in 1946 when the NHS took over.
I'd like to cite Barak Obama on this o

Re:Rational

[phantomfive]

You're welcome to inform me if he had any better arguments, but I'd rather not waste my time further if he didn't.

I know, you already made up your mind before watching it. You only accept arguments in your favor as true, working diligently to find a way to reject any argument you don't like.

Re:Rational

[beelsebob]

That's fair enough. If you don't have any valid arguments, you're free to not argue. I'd suggest that the person who is making reasoned arguments is in fact the one who's more likely to be flexible, and not the one who's simply made up their mind and is unopen to any other idea ;)

Re:Rational

[phantomfive]

In any case, my broader point still stands, politics is about preferences. Certainly there are societies that have chosen to eject their old people, rather than taking care of them. We would consider that barbaric and cruel, but it's very economical, and it's what they chose.

Re:Rational

[kurzweilfreak]

Following your first 3 points, I still don't see anyone lobbying for the banning of smoking which to my knowledge has no positive health benefits and is replete with health detriments. Nor to the implementation of mandatory exercise programs for those that wish to be covered under socialized healthcare. Either of these proposals would satisfy your points 2 and 3 at the top.

It sickens me

[Reverand Dave]

It sickens me that someone as blatantly anti-science as this broun asshat is even allowed to open his mouth in public, let alone have oversight on the subject. I don't care if that guy was just pandering to a bunch of hillbillies or if he really believes the shit that fell out of his ignorant mouth, it needs to stop.

Re:It sickens me

[PraiseBob]

There are lots of cogent reasoned responses to those opinions, they are called Biology textbooks, and Physics textbooks, along with other great scientific works like "On the Origin of Species".

Re:It sickens me

[s73v3r]

I don't believe you have a right to lie. Further, not once in that guy's post did he actually call for government censorship. So your statement is nothing but an attack looking for an excuse.

Re:It sickens me

[geekoid]

"It sickens ME that someone would call for suppressing the opinions of others simply because they don't agree with them."

It's its factual wrong, it's not an opinion, it's a lie.
You can have your own opinion, but not you own facts.

" Rather than supply a cogent, reasoned response to those opinions, they result to name calling and demands of censorship."
We have volumes and volume of books and warehouses of evidences of the facts.

"Oh, wait... I forgot how Democrats campaign nowadays, and, since they won, how the rights of others are now to be subservient to the "right" to not be offended by differing opinions..."
Wanting people to use facts and not speak nonsense is called 'reasonable discourse' pushing lies, making up a 'controversy', is not an opinion, it is stupidity. Which would be fine if it wasn't from someone trying to make policy decisions.

I don't give a shit about your political stance, but if you are spouting lies and ignorance I will call you out.

Re:It sickens me

[Burning1]

No one is calling for this congressman to be censored - If anything, his retarded comments have intentionally broadcast so that more people can understand how stupid they are. His comments have already been addressed over and over, and it happened long before he even said anything. Any of the books from Dawkins should be enough to answer any questions he raises. All that's really left is some ridicule.

Re:It sickens me

[sumdumass]

Actually, lots of answers in life can be found in that book. It depends on the questions you are asking.

Re:It sickens me

[eddy the lip]

Perhaps you would care to illuminate what a cogent argument against characterizing "evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory as 'lies straight from the pit of Hell" would look like? In my experience, arguing with the willfully ignorant is less than productive.

He didn't call for anyone being censored, but he is absolutely correct that that kind of idiocy has no place in the very serious business of running a nation. This has nothing to do with right versus left politics and everything to do with having people represent us who are at least semi-educated.

Unless your preference really is for ignorant representation?

Re:It sickens me

[eddy the lip]

And whether or not you want coherent answers.

Re:It sickens me

[sumdumass]

You can suffer that problem no matter where you look for answers. It's also closely associated with your abilities.

Re:It sickens me

[eddy the lip]

The religious like to think of the bible as a source of hermetic wisdom, something you can learn the answers to life's questions from if you are only open to the spirit. This is an easy way of dividing people into groups of "enlightened" or "unenlightened" based on whether or not they agree with you, with no need to explain oneself.

You can find nearly any answer you want in the bible, with a bit of knowledge and the ability to construct an interpretation. This makes it a terribly poor source of knowledge about anything more than the history of a particular religious group, and even that requires additional documents and research to provide context.

I was an Evangelical Christian. Read the bible a few times. I'm pretty familiar with how this argument works.

Re:It sickens me

[sumdumass]

The religious like to think of the bible as a source of hermetic wisdom, something you can learn the answers to life's questions from if you are only open to the spirit. This is an easy way

As I said, you can suffer the same problems elsewhere. The post I replied to was chastising someone for having a religious belief and the thread we are in was started by someone saying they were sickened that someone opens their mouth about certain things. Sounds to me like they found an easy way "of dividing people into groups of "enlightened" or "unenlightened" based on whether or not they agree with you, with no need to explain oneself."

You can find nearly any answer you want in the bible, with a bit of knowledge and the ability to construct an interpretation. This makes it a terribly poor source of knowledge about anything more than the history of a particular religious group, and even that requires additional documents and research to provide context.

I guess if you aren't paying attention. The bible talked about hygiene and passing on diseases long before Science had a competent understanding and practice of it. Look at Leviticus and ignore the animal sacrifices.

Anyways, it is no different then any other source of knowledge. Studying science isn't going to answer the meaning of life or give guidance on how to deal with other people. Philosophical questions pondered in other sources are just as hit or miss. You need the ability to discover in your own right many of these things as if it doesn't make sense, you are likely not going to follow or practice it.

I was an Evangelical Christian. Read the bible a few times. I'm pretty familiar with how this argument works.

I've heard similar statements before. I've been consistently unimpressed by some of their knowledge and conclusion. But that is not important, the point is that it's really no different then anything else.

Darwin would not have been elected

[iamagloworm]

listen to his wishy washy talk. what do you think he'd say about drones and kill lists? "I am very poorly today & very stupid & hate everybody & everything. One lives only to make blunders. I am going to write a little Book for Murray on orchids & today I hate them worse than everything" Those poor orchids, feeling the wrath of Darwin.

Re:Darwin would not have been elected

[RDW]

Those poor orchids, feeling the wrath of Darwin

"We found on St. Paul's only two kinds of birds - the booby and the noddy. The former is a species of gannet, and the latter a tern. Both are of a tame and stupid disposition, and are so unaccustomed to visitors, that I could have killed any number of them with my geological hammer."

- Charles Darwin, 'The Voyage of the Beagle'.

Re:Darwin would not have been elected

[geekoid]

In the margin he wrote:
"I don't like the gannet, they wet their nests!"~

Ran unopposed??

[GauteL]

Is this actually true? If so, isn't it utterly pathetic that nobody stood up to this guy by running against him?

Re:Ran unopposed??

[sumdumass]

Yes, when he was speaking to some Methodist group (or some other religious entity) he made those comments. Why no one ran against him, probably because he represents his constituents well and someone else wouldn't be elected.

BTW, the entire comments issue is blown out of portion. nothing he has done politically supports that ideology. It was pandering at its best but anyone who looks at his record doesn't believe he puts those views over science. It's more or less just a bunch of Atheists wanting attention and acting outraged because someone associated with science even in a cursory fashion had the gull to act like religion was more important then science.

Re:Ran unopposed??

[geekoid]

Oh really?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hjres45
In 2008, Broun and 91 co-sponsors introduced H.J.Res.89, a proposition for the Federal Marriage Amendment. The proposed amendment to the United States Constitution would define marriage as "as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman."[

Broun proposed failed legislation that would have proclaimed 2010 "The Year Of The Bible".

When Broun explained his reasons for voting against climate change legislation in June 2010, he called the entire concept of man-made global warming a conspiracy perpetuated by certain members of the scientific community

supported by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Forum

" It's more or less just a bunch of Atheists "
I know many believers who were also outraged by the statements.

" and acting outraged"
I can't speak for everyone, but I WAS outraged. Unlike you I don't presume to speak for an entire group.

" because someone associated with science even in a cursory fashion"
cursory? CURSORY? he is in a position to determine POLICY. that isn't not cursory. Some high school teacher making those comments at there own church is one thing, this is someone who tries to determine police for the whole country.

" had the gull to act like religion was more important then science."
no. he had the gall to say the thing he doesn't like were real even though there are warehouse full of evidence, even though they are facts, he acts like they aren't, and he is provably wrong.

Pay Attention.

Re:Ran unopposed??

[sumdumass]

Wow, gay marriage and anti abortion is the best you have against him? lol.. Those are not even scientific issues, they are social issues. You are not trying to say Science says Gays should be or have to be married and that Abortion must be available as birth control are you?

As for the global warming, it is a belief held by many who are not what you consider religious either. The conspiracy surrounding global warming is very well documented. The entire science has been corrupted including attempts to mitigate the damages like the Kyoto accords that had no real intentions of fixing global warming. In fact, of the 157 countries who signed on to it, only 37 has limits on their Co2 productions with 2 of them being set at levels they expected to reach more then 10 years down the road while the limited countries could skate around their restrictions by moving the production and the investments of infrastructure into another member country who doesn't have limits. The Jubilee 200 campaign who was among one of the several groups in the 1990's trying to get the world bank and first world countries to forgive the third world debt created by the 1970's oil embargo, announced after the Kyoto accord was negotiated that they had a means to achieve their goals though the Kyoto protocol. His statement on global warming has to do more with fact and perceived reality then religious dogma. Of course if you weren't indoctrinated against all things you don't agree with, you would have seen that too. This is why the US never signed onto Kyoto and why Clinton attempted to hide the debate around it. And yes, Hansen, Gore, Mann, all were supporters of the jubilee 2000 campaign.

Broun proposed failed legislation that would have proclaimed 2010 "The Year Of The Bible".

Other then your fear of religion, what has this got to do with science that he was involved with? You see, it's your paranoia not his actions.

The rest of your comment is exactly the same. Paranoid opinions based around your fears and emotion, not facts or reality.

Re:Ran unopposed??

[sumdumass]

lol.. because I'm not irrationally scared of religion or think it is some massive threat to science because someone thinks differently then I do? Go cower in fear before I thump you with the bible.

He would take one look at Congress . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . and decide that humanity was not evolving, but devolving.

Re:He would take one look at Congress . . .

[Daniel Dvorkin]

No such thing as "devolving." Any population-level adaptation over time in response to environmental pressures is evolution; given how succesful the H. sap. politicus subspecies has been in that adaptation (look at the re-election rate for incumbents) I'd say they're a nice example of evolution at work.

Re:He would take one look at Congress . . .

[__aaltlg1547]

On the contrary, I think he would find it very familiar.

Check your context

[Empiric]

It's a good 130 years too late to answer that question empirically...

So -you- say!

No.

[Guppy06]

At least not GA-10. For better or for worse, Paul Broun represents his district.

depending on where his remains are ...

[RobertLTux]

He might be perfect

1 he is old enough
2 currently resides in the correct state

okay so he is a bit deceased but ask anybody in Chicago Illinois that is not a problem. He at least can't be bought and won't try to pass any of the stupid laws we are getting nowadays.

Scientists would make horrible politicians

[wisnoskij]

A good scientist's main concern is always the truth.
A politician, in a democracy, does care about the truth just is instead a mediator and a interpreter of the public's will.

A good scientist is unlikely to be able to turn off his knowledge and intellect and serve the peoples will, and instead would want to enact laws and projects that actually worked and were based on facts and truth.

No.

[Farmer Tim]

That was Mary Shelley's department.

Re:How?

[Elbereth]

I had the same exact question, so I read his Wikipedia article. If there weren't citations for everything in the article, I'd assume that some liberal had written it as a scathing parody of the Tea Party extremists in the Republican party. I'm still a little shell-shocked and experiencing some denial that people like this truly exist.

It's time for the North to secede from the Union. The South can have their theocratic confederation. I don't care any more. They can keep everything: the oil, the farms, the National Guard, the military bases -- everything. I don't want to be in the same country as them any more.

Citing

[Empiric]

"...on evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory as 'lies straight from the pit of Hell.'"

By the way, it would be nice if the quote was an actual quote. Bear in mind that the Big Bang was initially proposed by a Catholic physicist/priest, and was roundly attacked as "anti-science" for sounding to much like Genesis, in contrast to the then-prevailing Steady State theory of the universe.

It's not clear to me what would be objectionable about embryology per se from any theistic stance, and it's really only scientifically-untestable "-only- evolutionary processes occur" that poses a conflict for some views of theism. When I see a semi-quote like this one, I tend to think there's a bit of bias involved with the citation...

Re:Citing

[dl107227]

"...on evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory as 'lies straight from the pit of Hell.'"

By the way, it would be nice if the quote was an actual quote. When I see a semi-quote like this one, I tend to think there's a bit of bias involved with the citation...

That was pretty much a direct quote. Here is a video of him saying that and more.

Re:Citing

[Empiric]

How about a fully-much direct quote? That's my personal preference for quotes, anyway.

Though it's more a question of editorial integrity than convenience, and I have only marginal interest in what Rep. Paul Broun says, out of curiosity I watched it. Granted, including "all that stuff I was taught about" didn't add much in terms of clarity.

Re:Citing

[Empiric]

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Re:Darwin?

[PraiseBob]

Is knowledge of Darwin and Evolution more important than NDAA authorization to kill Americans without trial?

Rejecting evolution is willful ignorance of reality, and chosing to live in a world dictated by random beliefs rather than direct observation. Before you can even hope to have a nuanced discussion of the pros and cons of a particular law, and what course of action would best benefit the republic, it helps tremendously to have a grasp of reality and an understanding of the world we live in. How can you have an intelligent discussion on education with somebody who would be unable to pass a 5th grade biology class?

if someone says something stupid, we get rid of them as an elected official
Now thats a newsletter I'd subscribe to...

Would Isaac Newton have made a good mechanic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would Julius Caeser have worked out in a boy band?

Would Abraham Lincoln have been a good NASCAR driver?

Would Queen Victoria have been a decent haberdasher?

These, and the question posed by the article, are all equally important.

Re:Would Isaac Newton have made a good mechanic?

[9jack9]

However, Charles Darwin got 4000 votes in the recent election, hence the post. The incumbent, who won, is Paul Broun:

Here's an interesting excerpt from Wikipedia:

In a leaked video of a speech given at Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman's Banquet on September 27, Broun is heard telling supporters that, “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.” Broun also believes that the world is less than 9000 years old and that it was created in six literal days. In response to this, and as Broun is also on the House Science Committee, libertarian radio talk show host Neil Boortz spear-headed a campaign to run the English naturalist and evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) against Broun, with the intention of drawing attention to these comments from the scientific community and having Broun removed from his post on the House Science Committee.

Broun is a medical doctor???

[turp182]

Evolution is one of the basic, but higher level, tenants of science (biology, chemistry, and physics define the parameters upon which evolution executes).

The study of viruses alone shows clear proof of evolution.

Does the man understand the point of a full dose of antibiotics? Or does he just have the numbers memorized?

A doctor without knowing evolution is true is a with doctor at best. Snake oil salesman at least.

Re:Broun is a medical doctor???

[turp182]

Witch doctor...

Re:Broun is a medical doctor???

[jbeaupre]

Yes, doctors just memorize the numbers. That's pretty much what medical school is.

Science and medicine work differently. Science is interested in learning why things work. Medicine doesn't care why, just if it works or not. It is a set of heuristics and tools. Science improves medicine, but an understanding of science is not needed to practice medicine.

Classic example: nobody knew how aspirin works until fairly recently. But doctors didn't need to know that. Take two and call me in the morning worked just fine. They memorized the numbers.

What most people consider a good doctor is someone who is fantastic with the heuristics and tools. A good memory.

And don't forget, people who say evolution isn't true are talking about evolving new species long ago. They almost never mean ongoing adaptation.

I'm not saying the guy isn't an asshat. It's just good to know what species of asshat we are dealing with and how it evolved.

Well, It's Quite a Junket...

[retroworks]

Aboard the Beagle, Darwin visited Tenerife, the Cape Verde Islands, the Brazilian coast, Argentina, Uruguay, Tierra del Fuego, Chile, the Galapagos Archipelago, Tahiti, New Zealand, Tasmania and the Keeling Islands... He'd miss a lot of committee meetings.

Definition of a Good Politician

[Roger W Moore]

A good scientist is unlikely to be able to turn off his knowledge and intellect and serve the peoples will, and instead would want to enact laws and projects that actually worked and were based on facts and truth.

I'd argue that this is the definition of a good politician: one who acts in the best interests of the people even if is not exactly what they say they want. While I would agree with your description of a typical politician as a demagogue with mediation skills that does not make the typical politician a good politician.

Re:Definition of a Good Politician

[wisnoskij]

Except that is not the definition of a democratic politician.
You are talking about different, more totalitarian, government types.

Re:Definition of a Good Politician

[TheRaven64]

No, he's talking about a representative democracy. You elect someone who represent your interests, not necessarily your opinions.

Re:Definition of a Good Politician

[wisnoskij]

No, even in a representative democracy the idea is that your representative is supposed to exercise their powers for the wishes of the electorate.

In real world situations you never have pure ideologies being practiced, so you will always find some amount of acting in the best interests of the people even if is not exactly what they say they want.

But that idea is completely contrary to the democratic idea.

Re:Definition of a Good Politician

[Roger W Moore]

No, even in a representative democracy the idea is that your representative is supposed to exercise their powers for the wishes of the electorate.

If that were the case why doesn't everyone have a system like Switzerland where the population has to vote on most issues? In fact with modern technology we could probably come up with a system where the population get to decide just about everything.

I would argue that the reason almost nobody has such a system is because, while it would exactly mirror what people want, it would not represent their best interests. Hence we have a system of choosing who will govern us and those people are supposed to act in our best interests but NOT give us exactly what we want. This is also why there are competing political parties: each has its own view about what our best interests are. If it was simply a case of doing what everyone wanted why would you need different ideologies?

Re:Definition of a Good Politician

[wisnoskij]

Well maybe everyone does not want a pure democracy. We absolutely could have most people vote on most issues, and that would be a pure democracy, but that does not mean that most people would vote for that or that that is a good idea.

Boneheads

[RudyHartmann]

So some congressman says some boneheaded thing. There's a big surprise. Now the correct respose is the boneheaded idea to elect Charlie Darwin to congress? Would Gengis Khan make a good hostess at the International House of Pancakes? Now that makes sense.

Re:Boneheads

[Sulphur]

So some congressman says some boneheaded thing. There's a big surprise. Now the correct respose is the boneheaded idea to elect Charlie Darwin to congress? Would Gengis Khan make a good hostess at the International House of Pancakes? Now that makes sense.

Until you ask for the Puree of Mongol soup.

Re:Boneheads

[Genda]

All that raping and pillaging! Who knew all he wanted was a decent strawberry syrup!!!

Re:Boneheads

[Genda]

First person to laugh at Ghengis when he repeats your Rooti Tooti Fresh and Fruiti order finds out how hard it is to get a waffle iron out of the back of your throat!

Re:How?

[ChrisMaple]

Alas, there are many forms of evil, and if you think you're safe if you separate yourself from religious screwballs, you're wrong. The northeast and the west coast have become increasingly accepting of violence, mobs, restrictions on liberty and property rights, and onerous taxation. That's a recipe for universal poverty and an invitation for a military invasion.

Is that what they call Darwinism?

[Tenebrousedge]

There is even precedent.

It seems Americans will vote pretty much anyone into office. Really, I've heard worse ideas. Zombie Feynman 2016, anyone?

Hannibal Lecter would be ideal

[Grayhand]

He's strong and intelligent, a sociopath so he doesn't care about the agendas of the rich or corporate America. And if some one disagrees with him in Congress and blocks his bill he'll just invite them over for dinner ending the Congressional roadblock by eating his opponent.

Re:Hannibal Lecter would be ideal

[Penurious Penguin]

Ha! You made me chuckle. Now imagine how interesting it would have been for Darwin to observe that. The lobbyists would be deep in the organ market, and favabeans would be up.

Re:Darwin?

[geekoid]

" ObamaCare causing thousands of companies to fire and reduce hours for millions of employees?"
false. as has been proven over and over again with actual numbers and math.

" Or any number of other issues that actually affect every day Americans."
like sickness, disease, cancer and a myriad of other medical issue? yeah, he should do something about that.

"Or, if someone says something stupid, we get rid of them as an elected official?"
if they are factually lies like this dickhead said? then yes.

No

[shadowrat]

Thankfully, he wasn't a congressman and instead had time to galavant around the pacific looking at birds.

Don't know

[multicoregeneral]

Would Susan B. Anthony have been a good taxidermist?

Why not?

[tompaulco]

As a fellow Christian and college educated person, I think that Darwin would make an excellent leader. Maybe not a great politician, but we don't need great politicians, we need great leaders. Now science is not the most import plank for a governmental platform, but I think he would properly fund science and research, which has not happened since the heyday of 50s and 60s, when, by a bizarre and surely unrelated coincidence, the United States produced the greatest technological advances in history.

Re:Why not?

[tompaulco]

Gullible fool detected.
That's not a very nice thing to say about Charles Darwin. He was a brilliant naturalist and extremely well educated. You can't just dismiss all his theories simply because he believed in God.

Re: When?

[tompaulco]

If Darwin were elected to congress in 2012 he would see a nation devolving. Most of the public has no real problem with evolution but people who are devolving to a more primitive state would not like a politician who was so focused upon evolution. Nothing could be more proof of devolution than the right wing diatribe and lack of a center core like Mitt Romney.
Funny, but I always though evolution was survival of the fittest. It almost seems like that is the position of the Republicans. The Democrats tend to be more about making sure that everybody gets a chance to reproduce , no matter how fit. In fact, the more responsible, intelligent, and hardworking people are, the less likely they are to reproduce.

Re: When?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, but I always though evolution was survival of the fittest.

And you are wrong. You know nothing about evolution.
Go. Read a book.

I weep for the future

[gelfling]

Because that was the dumbest question I've heard all year.

I woould dare say...

[Genda]

That Darwin's moldering corpse would make a better representative than Paul Broun.

Recall ?

[Turminder Xuss]

Don't you guys have recall laws to deal with this sort of crazy ?

rationality is overrated

[kenorland]

Informed and educated opinions leading to decisions do not work with without rational politicians. A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens.

Voting is intrinsically an irrational act, because the costs greatly outweigh the benefits, so if people behaved rationally, voter participation would be much lower than it is, and people wouldn't follow politics as much as they do. And no matter what you do, the vast majority of citizens is never going to understand science; they have neither the time nor the motivation for it.

Underlying your statements is the assumption that it is the job of government to do a lot of stuff for the people: to tell them what to think, to teach them, to keep them healthy, to make them wealthy, to promote equality, etc. Those all require decisions based on complex scientific and economic analyses. The problem with that is that nobody is capable of them. Once you drop that delusion and restrict government to its core functions, protecting liberty, justice, and common defense, rationality becomes much less important. A young earth creationist can fight in the military or adjudicate a murder just as well as some physics professor, probably better.

Re:Darwin?

[sumdumass]

Fact means exactly what it means. You can use a dictionary if you are confused. Reading comprehension helps a bit though. Try understanding what was said and perhaps you might have a different understanding instead of appearing ignorant and unthinking.

Re:Well

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

That probably would be used against him.

However, remember that the entire rest of the world was full-bore racist at that point, even the ones who thought slavery should be illegal.

Darwin's science helped humanity in it's long climb out of that ignorance.

I have to laugh about people who point out problems with Darwin...or Lincoln or even Jefferson or the Founding Fathers for that matter. Back then, assuming you weren't a slave yourself, you'd be screaming epithets at the slaves, or maybe you'd be part of the small fraction who thought those inferior brown people should not be enslaved, if you were enlightened.

Most likely not.

[ubrgeek]

Almost nobody does.

Of course not

[Hentes]

He was English, after all.

Dead Guy vs. Idiot

[billstewart]

Is this question really about whether Darwin in his prime would have been a good Congresscritter, or whether Darwin TODAY would be better than his opponent?

I think that today, what with being dead, he'd probably do less damage than the guy he ran against, so on balance he'd be better, but back when he was alive he'd really rather have spent his time away from Washington, sailing around looking for interesting flora and fauna. Still better than leaving That Idiot in charge.