Well, actually neither are correct regarding the theory of relativity. The difference is that the conservatives are way more incorrect than the liberals, and both sides are using rhetoric to cover up their ignorance. Relativity for the most part does provide a fairly accurate model of the ways humans perceive the universe and can act upon it, but the theory also has its flaws.

As for separation of church and state, and I am saying this as a rabid atheist, the wording in the Constitution on that issue is as weaselly as spin gets.

As for global warming, I support the actions liberals recommend. My contention is that the phrase "global warming" is an inaccurate description of the set of phenomena involved.

Finally, evolution, same as with relativity: a workable model that does a good job of modeling the rise of life on earth, but it too has flaws.

Dammit -- "global warming" is an inaccurate and misleading description...

Need more coffee.

Need more coffee.

Somehow I doubt it. ;)

That's what my doctor keeps saying too.

it too has flaws

Sure they have flaws, or rather problematic areas, but isn't the very definition of a theory that it is the best working explanation that currently exists - best only until supplanted by a better or more detailed theory?

Why do you see "global warming" as an inadequate term?

And nota bene, separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution. The phrase was later used by Jefferson in arguments, but the Constitution only mentions religion twice - once to prevent Congress establishing a national church or preventing the establishment of churches, and once to prevent a denominational filter being applied to officeholders.

Aren't those two things a separation of church and state, Miko?

Jefferson used the phrase "a wall of separation between the church and the state," and that phrase isn't in the Constitution, but the concept itself is embodied in the two clauses you mention.

But really, Maddow's segment is about politics vs. the laws of physics, which is what blew my mind. Too stupid to understand science? Just deny it exists!

Hey BP have you ever met her, seein' that you are coworkers, sorta?

She works for a different network, danf. :) Though I'd love to meet her.

Why do you see "global warming" as an inadequate term?

Primarily I find it inadequate because other anthropogenic damage to the environment is occurring, damage that is not only traceable to human activity but measurable. Examples are the increase of toxic substances in the environment and invasive species. The link between humans and the measured global warming is still only hypothetical; it has not yet even reached the level of theory. However, it does have potential, and the risks are great enough to invest in preventative measures. Therefore, I prefer a phrase like "warming risk", but even that falls short.

As for "separation of church and state", I am sure Jefferson meant for that in its purest and strictest sense, but the language they used in the Constitution and their correspondence does not prevent the integration of religious ideas into government--and the legislation it creates--once a church is otherwise independently established. Sure, it is semantics, but that is the problem Jefferson left to us by not being explicit.

Oh yeah. . duh. I obviously do not have cable.

I just wanted to call out that, though many people think "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution, it's not there explicitly. I don't think this was "weaselly," I think it was a necessary compromise given the number of official state churches that did exist at the time of the founding. Like everything in the Constitution, the wording on this is open to contemporary interpretations colored by current issues that could never have been imagined in the minds of the founders.

"is about politics vs. the laws of physics, which is what blew my mind." How facts backfire.

Self-link to my last MeFi post, about the serendipity between that story and finding a REAL challenge to our thinking about Relativity. I do suspect that a big reason that Petr Hořava's theory didn't catch on some time ago (proposed by someone else before him) is that, no matter how much you repeat to yourself "Science does NOT provide the Ultimate Answer, just a way to keep getting closer to it", even Scientists have a human need to have "faith" in something, and Einstein has been too much of a secular Jesus in my lifetime. Personally, after a period of my life where I have consciously abandoned big-f Faith in almost everything and embraced uncertainty, I have found that it makes me happier most of the time than I have ever been before, but makes it harder to get things done. Which is why so many people love Technology but hate Real Science.

Then there's the development in the tactics of enemies of knowledge is to attack the oversimplification of complex principles used by the eggheads to get their concepts through to "less smart" people. Summing it all up as "Global Warming" may have helped sell the concept in 1990, but 20 years later, the proudly ignorant see it as a Big Lie.

My ex had a wacky uncle who formed an organization called The Society of Evangelical Agnostics, dedicated to promoting uncertainty as a good thing. Maybe I should revive the concept (except that it suggests more of a tolerance for Religion than I have).

Heh, sort of like "Einstein said it. I believe it. That settles it."

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. -- from a spiffy NASA article on Global Warming vs Climate Change, and how "inadvertent climate modification" was the old term (in the mid-to-late 1970s), and "global climate change" is the new phrase, including changes to precipitation patterns and sea level, which will likely have a much greater impact on humans than the higher temperatures alone.

And the revision or avoidance of science as a political tactic scares me. Casting doubt on theories brought about from the scientific method with a quick comment against the offending theory.

Thx flt, that is what I was trying to say, but I don't think I was very effective.

Listen Conservatives, you picked the wrong organ, waging war on the liver is much more fun.