When a significant percentage of your party's base can believe evolution is a lie, you've got serious problems.

As a scientist (and a republican) and one that is convinced by the data that evolution is the best explanation for the adaptations we observe in all life on Earth, your use of the word "truth" disturbs me. Any biologist worth a salt would not be caught dead referring to evolution as a truth. We don't deal with "truth" and "lies" in science. It is all about data and interpretation of said data. One does not believe in evolution, one is convinced by that data that it is the best explanation for the origin of species. Belief is for churches and people that don't understand the scientific method not for true scientists

Hi Ohka, between you and me, I’ll refer to it as a robust theory. When I’m out in public, such as now – if you don’t mind – I’ll just call it a fact; saves possible misunderstanding.

Sure, but "fact" makes me a little queasy. But between you and me the evidence for is overwhelming. However, this doesn't mean we put it to bed, it just means that at this time, there is no better explanation. "Fact" and "truth" sound too much like Sunday School to me.

Okay, Ohka, I'll throw you a bone here:

When a significant portion of your party's base can disregard the mountains of evidence that have made evolution the foundational theory for the study of life on earth, you've got problems.

I hope that satisfies.

Ohka:

Sure, but "fact" makes me a little queasy. But between you and me the evidence for is overwhelming. However, this doesn't mean we put it to bed, it just means that at this time, there is no better explanation. "Fact" and "truth" sound too much like Sunday School to me.

But:

I think Moran makes a good point.

Yes, i agree with you. However, I have actually met many liberals that deny evolution. Many republicans are atheist and scientists. As a matter of fact, in my last lab, all the republicans were atheists and all the democrats were religious... go figure. I've met lots of young republicans that do not fit your stereotype. But, you are right and that is one of the many things that depresses me about the republican party.

As for my initial reply to this post, it was purely in response my irritation at the misrepresentation of scientific evidence as "truth". That always sets me off.

I understand. I’m not a scientist, but I read up on it a bit; it’s kind of a hobby. Almost everyday (and everyday when I look) I learn something new. Just now a co-worker came up and said “Hey, look at this, they just discovered a new butterfly in Vallejo, around a theme park”. She checked out the photograph and the article. “They only live three days”, she told me. Science is about discoveries and overcoming ignorance (and I don’t mean that in the pejorative sense of the word).

Ohka:

Yes, i agree with you. However, I have actually met many liberals that deny evolution. Many republicans are atheist and scientists. As a matter of fact, in my last lab, all the republicans were atheists and all the democrats were religious... go figure. I've met lots of young republicans that do not fit your stereotype. But, you are right and that is one of the many things that depresses me about the republican party.

As for my initial reply to this post, it was purely in response my irritation at the misrepresentation of scientific evidence as "truth". That always sets me off.

Hmm...I don't know any liberals that deny evolution. I know many who are religious, but that's not really the point, is it?

And yes, I know Republicans who are atheists, too.

According to the last survey I read, only 6% of American scientists identify themselves as Republicans.

Hummm... i got to tell you HAP. I don't like that link. The author is talking about absolute truths. For instance his gravity analogy. Sure there is a force called gravity that exists, and that is a fact but it is the mechanism that is important (and we still don't know how gravity works!!!). Nobody is disputing that there aren't variations and adaptations among living things, just as nobody ever disputed the existence of gravity. What is disputed is the mechanism of these adaptations, and as solid a theory as evolution is, it is far from fact. The thing is, that we don't need for it to be fact, we don't want it to be fact, because once it is seen as truth no advancements can be made. For example it was thought and even called "dogma" that DNA was transcribed to RNA and RNA was translated to protein always and in that order a "fact". Then retroviruses like HIV showed up and we now know that RNA can be translated into DNA.

The theory of evolution is fascinating, beautiful and powerful it can stand the test of time without being called a fact or a truth.

Ahhh, one of the proud 6%ers!

Well, I've never been very fashionable.

The ROBUST theory of evolution is fascinating, beautiful and powerful it can stand the test of time without being called a fact or a truth. Agreed.

LOL@ "Charles Darwin, you LIE!"

Say what!