Reply to thread

While it is interesting to read Palerider and Gipper support my hypothesis that conservatives must reject at least three scientific theories in order to be considered conservatives by debating global climate change, I'd like to get this thread back on track.  The AGW hypothesis has been already thrashed to a bloody pulp on this forum, and there is nothing new to be said on the matter.  Moreover, there is a thread on evolution already.

Now, that conservatives do reject those three theories has been established beyond a doubt, but is it really necessary to do so?  There really is no connection between science and most of the conservative points.  Evolution and a balanced federal budget, for example, are in totally separate categories, as are evolution (science) and intelligent design (philosophy).

Perhaps what needs to be done is to start a poll.  While not a scientific poll by any means, an internet poll on this website will at least give us an idea of whether self described conservatives on this site think that rejection of scientific theories is a requirement for credentials as a conservative.

Look for the first poll here.