Republicans Are More Pro-Science Than Democrats

Neil deGrasse Tyson defends government support for U.S. science research under President George W. Bush, and says that, contrary to popular belief, “funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats.”


  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Peacock/100001241183282 David Peacock

    not surprising;; and funding for welfare is substantially higher under dem controls.

  • Free market scientist

    The measure of who is more pro-scientific is where money gets spent? Why shouldn’t the goal be scientific advancement? Remember when Republicans used to believe that the free market, not Washington, does the best job allocating financial resources? Yes, Republicans waste just as much money on pork as Dems. This is not an accomplishment.
    Libertarians are the real believers in freedom. Want to improve education? Privatize it completely.

    • warp9

      yes, yes, agreed, but…..are you actually suggesting that people vote for the Libertarian candidate this November? Come on, wake up and be pragmatic. We are at a crossroads and like it or not, the Republicans are the only viable option if you truly value freedom.

  • Captain Kirk

    As a scientist, I knew this already. I have also observed that republican admins support science in general whereas democrat admins support science they can use for political purposes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/benfaust8778 Ben Faust

    He kind of lost credibility with me when he made the claim that Intelligent Design isn’t science, but religion. How is saying that, because nature seems to show strong evidence of design, there was some sort of designer who was greater than humans, without concluding who or what that was, religion? If he’s saying it’s not science because it can’t be reproduced, then that would be true; however, the same goes for teaching naturalistic origins. So, good video except for that one bit of flagrant ignorance.

    • Tucci78

      The point is that there is NO evidence of purposefully-directed design in nature. The religious whackjob approach is simply to say “I can’t figure out how this happened, therefore it’s gotta be God or Allah or Vishnu or Super-Intelligent Purple Space Squid who did this stuff, and we gotta grovel to the supernatural according to the dogma being pushed by our divinely-inspired preachers.”

      Abject intellectual laziness, with an overlay of willfully blind arrogance.

      ======
      “The great trouble with religion — any religion — is that a religionist,
      having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge
      those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith
      or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason — but one cannot
      have both.” [Robert A. Heinlein, 1983]

      • Yoikes

        “One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason — but one cannot have both.” [Robert A. Heinlein, 1983] Interesting. Bleak “UNcertainty” of reason. That “UN” is why evolution is still only a theory!

  • RT

    View ContactTo:rorytrup@sbcglobal.net
    Science is the study of ultimate truths. Either the universe made itself or something made it. Both views must be tested. Modern education is the problem with censorship and indoctrination. Modern science was invented by Catholic priests/monks that logically and methodologically worked to discover “God’s thoughts”. That is why science is in Latin (our legal system can also be traced to the Universal Church). Second evolution is still only a theory because by definition someone must create a living organism and repeat it before other scientists before it is considered a fact. It is fraudulent to even suggest evolution is a fact because nobody has even come close to making a living organism. The fossil record shows living creatures appeared suddenly and fully developed during the so called “Cambrian explosion”. Forth, irreducible complexity is the “silver bullet” that obsoletes evolutionary theory. Thus, basically there are so many parts to each function of a living organism that no mutation could survive long enough, in a family bloodline, to make it to completion. That is no species could survive with blood for millions of years without a heart, veins, lungs, clotting function, white and red cells, immune system, etc. The shame is all of this information is censored out of modern education (see movie “Expelled-No Intelligents Allowed”, so that students can no longer think. Students are indoctrinated and any bullied for independent thinking. How many of you reading this response even knew these simple facts. Now please read Romans 1 verses 16-32 and see why people willingly reject truth and hate those who seek truth. I rest my case. Peace.