How about original cause denial? How about 2nd law of thermodynamics denial? Your science is flawed precisely because you choose to ignore the foundational truths science – there must be original cause, He absolutely must be eternal, or you must throw out the 2nd law. I think your well theories are a house of cards.

It is so close but evidently Mooney doesn’t see the emotional bind he is in, call it cognitive dissonance or motivated reasoning. For science that support an emotion provoking, consistent _and_ factual approach to issues one has only to read Rosenhause’s post on that. It is months old; and it has actual references.

As Michael Baroody, president of AEI, said to a reporter back in the 80′s: “…our sophisticated ability to relate ideology to constituencies is what counts…”

http://tinyurl.com/4sm4zzu

This is the problem with our highly politicized environment these days. Reasoning has gone away, arguing “your side” of the argument is more important that understanding the other’s point of view and where they may be more, or equally, correct.

I think this is a product of the information age. Years ago, more people would make unbiased decisions based on how they feel about the information available to them. But these days, people tend to make decisions based on what their political affiliation tells them it should be. As if agreeing with the “other side” on any single point discredits the whole of their political ideology.

If one finds themselves agreeing with all the views of their political party 100%, there is little doubt that they are not using rational thought, they are using confirmation bias.