Frontrunners in the Republican presidential field are earning that position by rejecting the conclusions of the scientific community and the advice of groups like the National Academies of Science. Is this worse for the party or for the country?
Me: We have to get away from the word “belief”, which carries the connotation of something intangible, ephemeral and therefore inconsistent. Evolution, climate change and any other scientific based research carries with it an inherent confidence level based on experimentation and analysis. Hypotheses (proposed explanation for phenomenons NOT guesses) are put through rigorous and repeatable test for rejection or validation. Over time, and with continued testing, the hypotheses are held up and become theories (a system of ideas intended to explain something).
So rather then say I believe in evolution, I prefer to say I have a high degree of confidence in the theory, with the underpinning of proven evidence.
Confusion stems from the colloquial use of the word theory, most prevalent in the myriad of procedural crime dramas that clog the TV. This lack of depth of understanding of course is a reflection of the lack of math & science education within the US (which is the way the those who hold the money and power want it - a populous undereducated and underemployed following the carrot on the end of the stick of the “American Dream”).
(Source: addtoany.com)
