The Anti-Scientists On The House Science Committee
Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."
Broun -- a physician who earned a bachelor's in chemistry from the University of Georgia and a medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta -- made the controversial comments in a Sept. 27 speech at a sportsmen's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Ga.
Adding to the uproar is the fact that Broun (in photo at right) sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
In a video posted on the church's website, Broun said:
"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
Broun also told the gathering that the Earth is only about 9,000 years ago was created by God in six days. Such beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who maintain the creation accounts in the Bible are literally true. That puts them at odds with scientists who say the earth was formed approximately 4.54 billion years ago.
Broun has also dismissed climate change as nothing but a "hoax" that has been "perpetrated out of the scientific community."
But he's not the only member of the House Science Committee who has expressed anti-scientific views. Here are some other committee members who are at odds with the scientific mainstream -- and they're not all fundamentalist Christians from the South.
Chairman Ralph Hall (R-Texas)
Like a large majority of his fellow Congressional Republicans, Hall does not believe in human-caused global warming. In an interview with National Journal last year, Hall was asked about climate change and said, "I don't think we can control what God controls." He also said he agrees with Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) that climate scientists are involved in a conspiracy to receive research funding. When the reporter noted that a survey published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that 97 percent of climate-science researchers agree that human activities have contributed to global warming, Hall responded, "And they get $5,000 for every report like that they give out," adding, "I don't have any proof of that. But I don't believe 'em." Hall is a Methodist and holds a law degree from Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
Vice Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Sensenbrenner is another climate science contrarian. In a 2009 interview with a conservative talk radio host, he claimed that science on global warming is "inconclusive." He also asserted that "temperatures peaked out globally in 1998," when in fact nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since 2000, according to NASA. Sensenbrenner has said he believes solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles that anything humans do, even though scientists have found changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain changes in the earth's climate. A millionaire whose fortune comes from his great-grandfather's invention of the Kotex sanitary pad, Sensenbrenner has holdings in oil companies that have been valued at somewhere between $1.1 million and $1.7 million. An Anglican Catholic, Sensenbrenner holds a bachelor's in political science from Stanford University and a law degree from the University of Wisconsin.
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.)
Currently challenging incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill for her U.S. Senate seat, Akin sparked outrage this past August when he stated that women who are victims of what he called "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant. "If it's legitimate rape," he said in an interview with a St. Louis television station, "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." In fact, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that women are less likely to get pregnant from rape than from consensual sex. A Presbyterian, Akin holds a bachelor's in engineering from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts and a master of divinity from Covenant Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian institution in St. Louis.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)
Another climate contrarian on the House Science Committee, Rohrabacher has made a number of scientifically questionable statements, including the idea that an earlier period of global warming may have been caused by "dinosaur flatulence." Last year, after coming under fire for seeming to suggest that if global warming is real it could be addressed by cutting down trees (when in fact forests reduce global warming by absorbing atmospheric carbon), he issued a statement saying, "I do not believe that CO2 is a cause of global warming." That belief is at odds with most scientists, who agree that carbon dioxide is one of the primary greenhouse gases that trap heat in earth's atmosphere. Rohrabacher holds a bachelor's in history from California State University, Long Beach and a master's in American Studies from the University of Southern California. He's a Baptist.



same standard
By Brown, Aaron at Oct 11, 2012 14:27 PM
Reply this comment
Re: same standard
By Andrews, John at Oct 11, 2012 15:24 PM
Please enlighten me as to what is wrong with Organic Food / Farming. Do you advocate placing 10,000 hens in battery cages in a shed and feeding them antibiotics to stop them getting sick from being in contact with shit? Do you support spraying bananas with pesticides as they are being picked by the local 'un-people' whose skin is falling off their bodies due to the very same pesticide that I presume that you are happy to eat? Don't you just love the growth hormones fed to caged pigs who never see the light of day and end up on your plate as a hamburger or pork chop? What are your thoughts on the +200,000 Indian farmers who have committed suicide because they cannot afford to buy more wonder seed from Monsato and the yield has never been quite what was promised and the indigineous seed that was free has long gone?
Oh science, science uber alles. What a better world you have created.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: same standard
By Brown, Aaron at Oct 11, 2012 19:00 PM
"Organic" food? This is just one of the MANY scientific critiques of "Organic" farming:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
"Organic" food is a philosophy (a flawed one IMO), NOT any different than "regular" food. It uses the same (sometimes more) amount of pesticides. It does not taste any different and it is not nutritionally better (or worse) than "regular" food. It grinds my gears everytime I walk into our local grocery store and see working class folks like myself spending twice as much to buy the "right" kind of food for their families because folks like you (and the people who programmed your talking points) have been successful in your fearmongering.There is little to no data suggesting that GM food (or Monsanto) is responsible for Indian farmers' deaths. It is a complicated issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India
I have a simple question though, that goes back to my original post: if you are going to criticise people who don't believe in evolution and climate change using science/scientists, do you then think that the very same science/scientists are "off their rocker" regarding "organic" and "GM food"?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: same standard
By Andrews, John at Oct 12, 2012 09:57 AM
Why the anger?
I'm not an anti-science zealot but, then, neither am I a science zealot either.
I've been eating organic food for the last thirty years ever since I saw an article about banana pickers somewhere in either the Carribean or Central America who were being seriously harmed by the pesticide that was sprayed on the bananas as they were being picked. I decided at that moment that I did not want another person hurt so that I could eat bananas. Similarly, I stopped eating meat because I was so disgusted by the cruelty inflicted on animals. I did not want an animal to suffer to feed me. Over the years I have extended this to fish and milk products and am now virtually a vegan. My choice. I don't make an issue of it; I'm not an animal rights campaigner; I don't try to influence others to follow my path. My personal choice. So how does this impact on you? How does my personal choice impact on what happens in your supermarket? I presume that your supermarket stocks organic and non-organic produce? So you choose what you want.
I really don't need to read information telling me that there is no difference between organic and non-organic food as I have tasted both. Have you ever pulled a fish from the river or sea and eaten it immediately? If you honestly think that this fish tastes the same as one that has been intensively farmed and fed antibiotics to keep it disease free then I would suggest that there is something seriously wrong with the ecology where you live. Similarly, have you ever compared the difference between the egg shell of a free range, organic hen and a intesively farmed battery hen? The former is much thicker and takes a lot more to crack it than the latter.
I genuinely belive that organic food is produced in a more sustainable way than non-organic. I also believe that 'organic livestock' is treated better than intensively reared and farmed livestock. How does this make me an anti-science zealot?
In my experience of The Left, they are not anymore inclined towards homeothapy and reiki than The Right. Are you mixing up New Ageists and The Left here? Even so, assuming that The Left have a penchant for homeothapy / reiki, how does this affect you? Okay, people may be wasting their money on un-scientic remedies but in what way does this impact upon you and your life?
In health terms, would you agree that life expectancy could be used as a measure of a nation's sucess in looking after its people?
Life expectancy in Cuba is either the same as, or better than, life expectancy in the USA. Given that the USA is the most scientifically advanced nation on earth and Cuba is a relatively poor country that has been blockaded for the last 52 years, how come the Cubans are so sucessful at keeping their people alive? I'm sure that there is a good scientific reason why a science limited country can be so sucessful.
Best wishes
John Andrews
London 11/10/12
Reply this comment