Where do the candidates stand on evolution?
Ronald Bailey, Reason’s science correspondent, took on an interesting project this week: documenting where every major-party presidential candidate stands on evolutionary biology.
Oddly enough, this has taken on far more political significance this election cycle than the last two. It started back in May, in one of the more memorable debate moments of the year, when John McCain was asked a straightforward question: “Do you believe in evolution?” (After a pregnant pause, McCain said, “Yes.”)
The Politico’s Jim VandeHei opened it up to the stage: “I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?” The camera didn’t show the 10 candidates for very long, but three would-be presidents raised their hand: Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. Later, Ron Paul acknowledged that he doesn’t “accept” modern biology, either.
So, where do we stand overall? Dems do pretty well. Republicans, not so much.
Would the answer for the GOP be "out in left field?"
I'm not sure who cares.
Where do the candidates stand on the future, rather than the past?
Where do the candidate's stand on the Iraqi Genocide? Or the 4th amendment ? Or Habeus Corpus?
Or Taxes(we work over half a year before we start to use our own money statisticly), or inflation, or the 700 military bases?
Really much more important questions,
So do any Democrat's want to take me up on a bet?
I bet they will pass immunity for the FISA crimes, Fund the War through 2008, and allow our right's to run over roughshod.
Ironically, I think there's some truth to the anti-evolutionists: we haven't evolved much.
Once a Nation abandons science and truth all hope is lost.
On their knuckles.
Where do the candidate's stand on trade treaty's that destroy our middle class and lead to things like the Codex Alimentarius?
"How could a country that prides itself in its freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and freedom of information be facing such severe restrictions in health freedom and dietary supplements? Haven't the people made their will known? Didn't our government pass the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 to insure our right to health supplements?
Indeed, our government did. But the FDA and FTC have found ways to get around that. The laws put in place to protect us are being ignored. And what's worse is that those laws are about to be superseded, if the powers that be have their way."
http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/codex-alimentarius.html
Why does it matter what they think about creationism?
If someone is gullible or stupid enough to profess belief in the Bible's story of the creation of the universe, earth and its inhabitants.... then that same person is gullible and stupid enough to believe in "end-times" nonsense... and therefore not fit to have his/her finger anywhere near the nuclear button or any other toys requiring a logically functioning brain to not use.
Any further questions?
P.S. I would love to hear someone ask Huckabee how he feels about the end-times and Armaggedon and all that fun stuff.
non issue
Where do the candidate's stand on Martial Law and the suspension of right's via Executive order?
Executive Order 12656 "Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities", February 16, 2004 plus Executive Order 13074, Amendment to EO 12656, February 9, 1998.
"Executive Order Number 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry." [4]
Executive Order 11921 "Adjusting Emergency Preparedness Assignments to Organizational and Functional Changes in Federal Departments and Agencies" allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [stated as the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency] to "develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months." [5]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Establishing_martial_law_in_t...
Sure does matter when it comes to funding studies of Evolution!
Accepting the fact of evolution is a test in a candidate's basic knowledge of science. Creationists reject a huge facet of scientific knowledge. It's a question of basic competence and the Republican field is lacking it. We had people in the Reagan administration who thought Jesus was going to return soon therefore all the rape of the environment was acceptable since the Secretary of the Interior said Jesus would restore the environment. Reagan believed that nuclear war would be a sign of Jesus' return and kept his finger close to the button.
If a candidate doesn't accept the fact of evolution but believes in the I Dream of Jeanie theory of life (everything just popped into existence from nothing) then what would stop them from believing in astrology, Middle Earth, or alien polymorphs disquised as humans?
Republican positions don't exists:
Global Warming
Evolution
Republican positions do exists:
Man sitting in the clouds at the pearly gates who determines whether or not you can get into the kingdom of heaven after you die so you can wonder the clouds for all eternity with wings on your back.
Let's not forget there are multiple "theories" of creationism... each one as provable as the others. The one you believe in is the "truth", the ones you don't are "myths"... those with a functioning logical brain know they're all stories. Here's the Aztec truth/myth/story... it's got everything: blood, guts, snakes, human sacrifice.
Quetzalcoatl, the light one, and Tezcatlipoca, the dark one, looked down from their place in the sky and saw only water below.
A gigantic goddess floated upon the waters, eating everything with her many mouths. The two gods saw that whatever they created was eaten by this monster. They knew they must stop her, so they transformed themselves into two huge serpents and descended into the water. One of them grabbed the goddess by the arms while the other grabbed her around the legs, and before she could resist they pulled until she broke apart.
Her head and shoulders became the earth and the lower part of her body the sky. The other gods were angry at what the two had done and decided, as compensation for her dismemberment, to allow her to provide the necessities for people to survive; so from her hair they created trees, grass, and flowers; caves, fountains, and wells from her eyes; rivers from her mouth; hills and valleys from her nose; and mountains from her shoulders.
Still the goddess was often unhappy and the people could hear her crying in the night. They knew she wept because of her thirst for human blood, and that she would not provide food from the soil until she drank. So the gift of human hearts is given her. She who provides sustenance for human lives demands human lives for her own sustenance. So it has always been; so it will ever be.
andy @ 9:
On the contrary, this ably demonstrates how the majority of the Republicans have, incredibly, no faith [pun intended] in science and that would certainly include, of all people, a doctor, namely, Ron Paul. It is simply stunning that anyone would even think about electing to the presidency someone who disavows evolutionary biology. Perhaps the candidates should also be asked if they are against blood transfusions and the idea of gravity, as they might proffer the argument that God will save them from disease and falling from a very tall building. Ah yes, the Republicans, the party that will lead this country back to the 19th, 18th, 17th, centuries.
Cycle3man @ 11:
Whichi is why I support Dr. Paul's localy based educational policy. I doubt SF Liberal's want Alabama Hicks deciding what
their children are learning, and vice versa.
In addition most education is payed for localy already by property taxes.
Oh. My. God!!
The candidate who said he doesn't see "absolute proof" in the *theory* of evolution, is the same idiot who stepped forward six years ago and humiliated himself by stating publicly that didn't believe in the "absolute proof" of Iraq's stockpiles of WMD.
I mean, how much more ignorant and moronic can you get??!!
Wonder what percentage of the Paul-ettes know that Paul doesn't believe in evolution. This quote is a dandy: "First, I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I, um, I think it’s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory…. I just don’t think we’re at a point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side."
Now I need some Absolut 100 proof.
So Science does not matter?
In addition your syntax is very misleading for anyone whom does not read the linked article.
"Ron Paul acknowledged that he doesn’t “accept” modern biology, either."
Is a craptacular cut and paste of the article you linked to. No where does he say he reject's modern biology, he merely express's
doubt in the theory of evolution not "modern biology".
"I just don’t think we’re at a point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side."
Thanks for the agenda driven gross overgeneralazation.
Dance Monkeys, DANCE! http://iacs5.ucsd.edu/~pbang/dance_monkeys.htm
Ron Paul never said he doesn't believe in natural selection or mutations.
But he has always maintained that a hypothesis or theory is not verification of scientic certainty.
True scientific LAWS mean you can test and re-test and have other academics conduct the exact same tests and get the precise same results. As a physician, Dr. Paul is not a moron about biology, and perhaps even knows a little bit more about science, biology and chemistry than some consdescending bloggers discredit him for.
Repeating: A scientific theory is not the same thing as a scientific law.
Maybe some day, mouth-breathing pseudo-intellectuals will comprehend that there is, in fact, a notable difference.
That is all. Back to your NCAA basketball and NFL playoffs...
simo parker @ 22:
Does Ron Paul believe in any theories? Or does he reject all of them because "I just don’t think we’re at a point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side"?
Kucinich is once more not allow to give his view on the issues....
NBC un-plugs Kucinich from Presidential debate Print E-mail
Re-writes criteria to exclude candidate with ’dissenting’ positions
Less than 44 hours after NBC sent a congratulatory note and an invitation to Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to participate in the Jan. 15 Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas, the network notified the campaign this morning it was changing it announced criteria, rescinding its invitation, and excluding Kucinich from the debate.
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notified the Kucinich campaign this morning that, although Kucinich had met the qualification criteria publicly announced on December 28, the network was “re-doing” the criteria, excluding Kucinich, and planning to invite only Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards.
The criteria announced last month included a fourth-place or better showing in a national poll. The USA/Gallup poll earlier this month showed Kucinich in fourth place among the Democratic contenders.
In an email to the Kucinich campaign at 2:35 p.m. on Wednesday, January 9, Democratic Party debates consultant Jenny Backus wrote:
“Congratulations on another hard-fought contest. Now that New Hampshire is over, we are on to Nevada and our Presidential Debate on Tuesday January 15. This letter serves as an official invitation for your candidate to participate in the Nevada Presidential Debate at Cashman Theatre in downtown Las Vegas. You have met the criteria set by NBC and the Debate.”
Todd notified the Kucinich campaign this morning that the network had decided to change the criteria and limit participation in the debate to only three candidates.
Kucinich is the only remaining Democratic Presidential candidate who: voted against the original Iraq War authorization in 2002 and every war-funding measure since; voted against the so-called Patriot Act; advocates a national, not-for-profit health system that covers all Americans; has called for the repeal of NAFTA and withdrawal from the WTO; and proposes a national back-to-work program (Works Green Administration) patterned after the Depression-era Works Progress Administration (WPA).
The Kucinich campaign, which filed an emergency complaint with the Federal Communications Commission last week because of ABC’s decision to exclude the candidate from a nationally televised debate, is considering legal action to address “the blatant disregard of the public interest in silencing public debate that dissents with the views of NBC, its parent company, GE, and all of the military contractors and their candidate-funding corporate interests. Corporate control of the media is one issue. Corporate media control of the information that is allowed to reach American citizens is much more dangerous, much more sinister, and much more un-American.”
“When ‘big media’ exert their unbridled control over what Americans can see, hear, and read, then the Constitutional power and right of the citizens to vote is being vetoed by multi-billion corporations that want the votes to go their way,” the Kucinich campaign said.
Doug @ 12:
I see: you think we need to test the candidates in this manner, when they apply for the job of President of the United States.
Do you think it's okay to be asked this question during your own job interview? You know, so the employer can get an idea on how basically competent you are?
The loosening of the "rules", the relaxing of religious discussion in non-religious matters, is like a cancer growing in our culture and our government.
Yah, it's total HERESY that a doctor won't elevate a THEORY to the level of CERTAINTY and FACT.
It's comforting to know that many crypto-liberals have as many of their own infallible SACRED COWS as do the lunatic christo-conservatives.
Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.
C'mon......it stares us all in the face...every morning...all you have to do is look in the mirror.....yeah......and women were created from Adams rib....sheeesh.
In science, a theory is an explanation of natural phenomenon. You can't "believe" or "not believe" in a natural phenomenon like evolution. You can "believe" or "not believe" in a religion, but not scientific theories. You either understand or don't understand evolution. Ask the candidates the correct question.
Ha Ha they're screwing Dennis again.
Ahh with Dems like MarKOS who need's enemies.
Where do the candidate's stand on equal access to the electorate?
Lollimom @ 25:
I don't think Doug is running for the highest office in the land............to completely different scenarios.
slacker_george @ 23:
He does have "beliefs" in Austrian economic theories.
But that's not the same thing as scientific "proof."
I suppose you would have a valid point, if you honestly swallowed the gullible fiction that "political science" is, in fact, real genuine science.
Back to your football games.
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
slacker_george @ 23:
That's employing an argumentum ad ignoratiam, a fallacy in logic on Ron Paul's part.
Of course it's similiar to the Lockian maxim, "Je ne sais quoi?" but that was more in modesty than in specious comparisons.
But where do the candidates stand on torture?
To the side, while smoking a cigarette, pointing and laughing.
When-oh-when will the good doctor learn that we liberals would respect him ten-fold more if he came out and directly LIED to us and told us what we want to hear about our immovable proofs? He's not part of our groupthink, hence he is an idiot, and we will burn him at the stake in our ritualistic witch trials until he relents, apologizes and tells us exactly what we believe.
34 ginned-up garbage again
Living up to your own chosen nom de guerre?
Acting Patriotic @ 21:
the monkey with the glasses , larry king live!
andy @ 9:
Agreed.
Those who don't believe in Evolution should not participate therein.
Repubs won't teach our kids science because they want them to be poor and not have the free time to be politically active. The middle class has always been the backbone of political movements
Lollimom @ 25:
It would certainly be a fair question to an applicant to ask whether they believe in evolution. If the applicant said no, end of applicant's chance to work for any company or organization that values employees with common sense and basic reasoning skills. With that you get jerks like a druggest who won't fill perscriptions for birth control pills or politicians who fund abstinence.
Republicans are liars so you will never get a straight answer that they won't try to change later.
WithOUT that you get jerks like a druggest who won’t fill perscriptions for birth control pills or politicians who fund abstinence.
C&L favorites:
Dennis Kuchinich, Ron Paul, John Edwards, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow
Unmentionables:
Barack Obama and "In it to win it" Hillary Clinton.
40% of Democrats don't believe in evolution.
Religious beliefs are relevant to politics.
I give no credit for someone following his or her beliefs per se.
Look at the ridicule DK got for believing he saw an alien craft.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
Talcott @ 3:
Who cares? We'd rather make fun of a candidate who does care, amuse ourselves to death, and fiddle while Rome burns. Some of us even like to be spoonfed dogshit and call it chocolate ice-cream.
I'm more interested in what one DOES believe (and why) than in what one DOESN'T believe.
There are lots of things people don't (or wouldn't) believe for any number of reasons (ignorance, plain disagreement as to assumptions or conclusions, etc.).
The fact that I, having been trained in electrical engineering, know a little of quantum theory and its predictive power doesn't mean my neighbor who knows nothing of quantum and might be highly skeptical of certain quantum theory predictions is therefore a fool or charlatan.
On the other hand, if my neighbor says he believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, I'm probably going to write him off as a lost cause (unless he's got compelling factual evidence).
seevee @ 43:
I'm sorry....but I have to do this........he claimed it was a UFO!....not an alien space craft........to completely different things......one you can't identify....the other .....well.........I'll let you form your own conclusion...
two..........shit.....................ok see ya.
Mrs. Garrison is only thinking of the children: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/11/evolution_on_so.html
high school graduate @ 28:
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. This is what I have been screaming about for years. Evolution is not something you put faith in and there for "believe in." You either accept it as the best model for the development and extinction of species or you don't.
I happen to be a Christian who not only accepts that life has evolved through adaptations, mutations, extinctions etc. Not only do I accept evolution as a scientific theory. I teach about it and the age of the earth at a Christian university.
There are no such thing as theories of creationism. In no way shape or form has Adam and Eve or the great Turtle Island been put to the extensive testing, examination and analysis such that it can be accepted as a scientific theory. And why should they?
Creationism stories are metaphors and myths, and I believe (there's that word in it's proper context relating to faith) they were intended to be metaphors when first told ages and ages ago. I don't think they were ever supposed to be literal explanations of "the beginning." By the way, I also enjoy studying the western Christian bible. If anybody is interested read the first two chapters of Genesis. You will notice that there are two, almost completely different creation myths. The second one starts at verse 4 in the second chapter. The first one, God makes all the other stuff and then humans. The second one God starts with the human and decides...hmm...this guy is lonely and bored so lets put some animals and plants out there for something to do. So I wonder how these stories can be anything but myth.
billy bob tweed @ 17:
Agreed. Healthy skepticism is America's mortal enemy. Asking for proof endangers the republic.
"...Then over millions of years evolution took its course. Of course I’m obligated by the state of Kansas to present the Church’s alternative to the theory of evolution." The Family Guy
Why would these knuckle draggers believe in evolution? It's obviously passed them by.
I have a problem with the question.
You do realize that you're not supposed to "believe" in science, correct?
You're supposed to TEST science... and re-test... and re-test... ad infinitum.
Newton's laws of Gravity stood for FIVE HUNDRED YEARS, despite the fact that, NEWTON'S LAWS OF GRAVITY ARE WRONG! Newton's laws of Gravity don't take into account the idea of RELATIVE motion. Newton only considered ABSOLUTE motion. It works well enough inside a gravity well, but not so well when calculating the motions of planetary objects.
However, the people who THOUGHT they were "more enlightened" than others developed a RELIGIOUS fanaticism around their pet theory, to the point that they couldn't see the truth. Indeed, people who "believe" in science, aren't very "scientific" at all!
You want evolution to be the end-all-be-all of biological science? Go ahead. You're only closing your OWN minds.
I prefer to keep my mind open.
So what else doesn't Ron Paul "accept"? Gravity? Atomic theory? The world being round?
"Reality is that which still exists after you stop believing in it." - Philip K. Dick
seevee @ 43:
That's because americans have poor science education standards. But there is still a correleation between conservative republicans and belief in creationism. The gallup poll has shown that link for 30 years. Unfortunately the democrats have inbred banjo players as well, we just have fewer of them.
You BELIEVE in religion
You ACCEPT reality.
Den @ 54:
"He who permit's himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do a 2nd and 3rd time, till at length it become's
habitual"-Thomas Jefferson
bubba @ 55:
Steve Martin?
Ohhh! What a deep phylosophical crap? Who really gives a shit! I don't! I'd like to know where the candidates stand in the increasing number of homeles, on the job market availability, on the corruption taken place in every level of government, on the student loans for poor people, on the daily stupidity of the MSM, on the value of the dollar in the world market, on the improvement of the American economy. That's I what I and some of my fellow bloggers would like to know. Not fucking evolution bullshit!
simo parker @ 22:
Sorry, Paulette, but what in physics is called law is called theory in all the other sciences. In order to rise to the level of scientific theory a given hypothesis must pass through a fairly rigorous set of tests which have numerous fail safes built in. Not a "perfect" way of seeing the world, but face it you BAHBUL thumpers, world knowledge has progressed more rapidly in the last 250 years than in the preceding 6000 or so, BECAUSE we LOOK at the world as it IS, not as we wish it was based on some ancient book of uncertain authorship. Scientific conclusions are frequently overturned precisely because of the inquisitive nature of science. Seeking to prove the bible true and rejecting all evidence to the contrary is not science. Not understanding scientific method is central to the misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. And this is why you think Ron Paul is cool or whatever. You misunderstand basic forms of logic and cannot see the blatant contradictions in Ron Paul and pick out the few things you agree with. Or whatever your thought process is, who knows? You can't see he is a blatant white supremacist. You can't see that libertarianism is a fairy tale, based on some kind of innate goodness in the "free market". And you can't see the plain evidence of evolution. You should be sure to thank Ronald Reagan for the destruction of the public school system so thorough that you have graduated from whatever school you attended with this level of misunderstanding of basic science.
James @ 53:
No need. Your brain fell out long ago.
Buddy, I have great confidence that you are an ignoramous. Im willing to bet that youve never investigated the issue beyond some internet sound bites and possibly reading a little creationist rhetoric. This is the usual pattern.
Being intellectually dishonest you dont understand the idea of investigating an issue or the evidences for and against it. I would bet a great deal of money that my view of you is correct and that you couldnt even name the top evidences for evolution without looking them up.
Obama's church is creationist.
He's going to have to deal with his nutty church at some point, either now or in the general election, and Id prefer its vetted now.
btw Hillary passed this test with flying colors. I didnt quite understand Obamas answer.
They are all still evolving ,so they'll get back to you.
Loving Mike Gravel's answer. It's a shame the dude doesn't have a chance, because America needs a good dose of honesty.
Peter, The Family Guy, on Evolution: "Then over millions of years evolution took its course. Of course I’m obligated by the state of Kansas to present the Church’s alternative to the theory of evolution."
http://tinyurl.com/2a292a
The reason these guys can't say they "believe in evolution" is because they're chasing the votes of a lot of people who irrationally adhere to a literal interpretation of an ancient myth.
As others here have pointed out, evolution doesn't require "belief". It's not a belief system or the tooth fairy. It's a scientific theory, a working model of reality, which at this point has about as much data supporting it as Newton's theory of gravitation. If you don't accept the theory of evolution you're also rejecting universally accepted ideas about genetics, biology and anthropology. If someone says "I don't believe in evolution", I'd ask them, "well, do you accept that humans are primates and we share about 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos?" You don't have to believe it, but it's a fact.
Or better yet, they ought to flip the question around: do you believe that about 6,000 years ago God created the world in 6 days? Do you believe there was a boat that held two of every kind of animal on earth? Do you believe a man called Methuselah lived for 969 years? etc. With Mitt Romney you could really go to town: do you actually believe that Native Americans descend from the Lost Tribes of Israel?
Den @ 54:
Ridiculous. You can test gravity, because it is a law. Evolution is only a "law" in the close-minded liberal mind. To realists, evolution is not 100% provable. As Ron Paul says, it is a theory, not a law.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
Bullcookies. Scientific laws derive from the parent theory, to illustrate the outcome in specific circumstances. The 'testable, repeatable' aspect you attribute those laws are, in fact, what proves or disproves the theory. You cannot assert that the theory of gravity is less valid than Newton's Laws.
This is more of a caveat about static, unchanging thought than any particular failing of Newton or Newton's Laws. We didn't have an extensive understanding of the universe beyond our own planet when Newton derived his equations. Keep an open mind, by all means, but consider what it would take to invalidate evolution theory: the discovery of extraterrestrial life, or a specific life form which exists in seeming contradiction to its environment.
Additionally, Newton lived from 1641-1727. Adding FIVE HUNDRED YEARS would be 2141-2227, so let's reign in the exaggeration, shall we?
As to the whole, 'disbelieving evolution,' in a basic sense, a person's beliefs shouldn't matter. (Though, quite frankly, if evolution is real, disbelieve all you want - it doesn't change how things work. I can disbelieve in gravity and attribute it all to super-mystical invisible sticky-stuff - that doesn't invalidate Newton's Laws.)
The danger is when people take matters of faith, which do not require absolute or factual proof, and use them as the basis for public policy and disregarding or disputing scientific fact. Evangelical Christianity is, in a sense, fueling anti-Muslim sentiment and a foreign policy that seems to hold that we are obligated to bring freedom and liberty (gifts of God and Christ Jesus) to the backwards folk of the Middle East.
It also lays the groundwork for even graver dangers - both a generation that spurns critical thinking in favor of factual spam, the haphazard, homogenized pulp of selective facts that is Creationism/Intelligent Design; and a generation raised on the zero-sum mindset of conservative talk radio and a media that sustains it rather than exposing it as carnival hucksterism in a three-piece suit.
I choose to believe in God, but I believe in evolution as the mechanism through which God expressed Himself. It is not necessary to reconcile the biblical account of Genesis with the geological timeline, as it imposes human limitations (God must have done thus-and-such, then so-and-so) upon what is supposedly a timeless and divine action.
bob @ 60:
Is that so, then why don't scientists start calling it the "Law of Evolution," the way they do the "Laws of Gravity," insead of calling it a "Theory of Evolution"? You take the high road like you know your stuff, and condescend to others, so help some of the rest of us by explaining how a theory is the absolute 100% exact same thing as a law.
Another comedy of the staunch militant atheist's is to read religous writing's literaly.
They are frequently poetic, symbolic, or spiritual.
The way you phrase questions matters.
The question shouldn't be "Do you believe in evolution", it should be "Do you accept the theory of evolution".
sir donut @ 26:
So evolution is merely a "crypto-liberal" sacred cow?
Some people here need to do a little reading about the scientific method and what exactly is meant by the word "theory". You can't dismiss or discount evolution because it is not "proven", and therefore not a certain fact. The dividing line between fact and theory is not so clear-cut.
Evolution is not a hypothesis, an educated guess based on preliminary data. It's much, much more than that. It's based on a vast body of empirical (real, factual) data in the areas of botany, biology, natural history, zoology, geography, paleontology, geology, climatology, genetics and and many other disciplines, stretching back 150 years.
The fascinating thing is, all the scientific advances and discoveries related to evolution since the time of Darwin positively corroborate evolution. Evolution as a theory is stronger and better documented than ever before, and new scientific evidence supporting Natural Selection emerges all the time.
The latest breakthrough in genetics, the compiling of the DNA genomes of humans and other species, is a case in point. It has recently been discovered that humans, chimps and other primates share common genetic material in the form of old, dormant viruses. These genes are powerful genetic evidence that primates - including modern man - share common ancestors.
That's not "crypto-liberalism", it's science.
The arguments in favor of creationism, by contrast, often aren't scientific at all. They're rhetorical. They're mere negative positions, tailor-made to oppose the ideas, theories, and yes, facts, arrived at by legitimate science. This is why creationism is so persistent in spite of scientific proof to the contrary. Creationism has nothing to do with reason. It's inherently illogical.
Erikthered @ 73:
Uh-do you think the Thug troglodytes on the stage would have answered differently had the question been phrased 'correctly?' No. As a matter of fact, if any of them had caught the nuance you bring up, they would have hopped all over it and extended the 'debate' (not really a debate, now is it? It's a bunch of self-aggrandising stiffs discussing stuff in a forum) for hours.
the dylanoid @ 68:
Moron, you can test a theory. That's the entire definition of a theory. It is an idea that can be subjected to scientific testing.
And yes, evolution has been tested. It is tested everytime a new fossil is uncovered. It is tested when new bacteria are discovered, like the one can evolved to eat nylon, a material that didn't exist until the 20th century. Or new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria are discovered.
Laws are ideas that aren't tested anymore because most of them have been around for hundreds of years now and we've run out of ways in which they can be tested. Laws such as gravity or the laws of thermodynamics have been so thoroughly tested that there is no conceivable way to disprove them anymore.
Oh, and physics has lots of theories, too: Atomic theory, relativity, etc.
The sad thing about this country is that people who couldn't pass middle school chemistry and don't know the first thing about the scientific method get their views on science put on equal footing to people who actually the know the definitions of words like law, theory, and hypothesis as they pertain to science.
the dylanoid @ 68:
Ron Paul seems to say alot, doesn't he? Hard to believe the genius hasn't run for Prez before he turned, how old is he? 80? So he's been around long enough to LIVE evolution.
Where do the candidates stand on evolution? Who honestly gives a crap?
Thats like asking.. where do you stand on the universe being infinite or having a limit?
IT DOES NOT MATTER PEOPLE!
the dylanoid @ 71:
Dude, I'm sorry, but you need to start with 9th grade science, progress through biology, chemistry, physics, physiology, botany, horticulture, calculus, thermodynamics, reactor plant technology and some other courses before you talk to me about what is and isn't science.
Bush is proof that a 'monkey' can evolve into a semi-human chimp.
The general theory of relativity trumps newton's laws of gravity in terms of making accurate predictions. Newton's laws are used for somewhat accurate approximations but the theory still trumps the supposed "law". These are just terms. Laws and theories are usually different things, not a sliding scale. Laws tend to be short and describe established observed principles but don't tend to delve into the "whys" like a theory might. They are accurate only as long as we don't observe something that invalidates them...same as a theory.
Its just another example of the grasping and misrepresentation put forward by the creationists.
andy @ 9:
I disagree. For those of us in the scientific community this directly relates to us regarding federal funding and the political attitude toward research overall. More importantly, scientific research is most definately the future of this country and a President who is unable to make a rationale decision based upon scientific experimentation is a harm to our success as a nation in the current and future global market. While I realize that Hillary is not taken well on this site, one of the main reasons I support her as a candidate is because of her stance on removing one's religious bias from her understanding of science. Quotation from her website:
Hillary has also outlined a set of proposals to end the Bush administration's war on science and to restore scientific integrity to government decision-making. She will:
Rescind the ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research.
Ban political appointees from unduly interfering with scientific conclusions and publications.
Direct department and agency heads to safeguard against political pressure that threatens scientific integrity and to promote transparency in decision-making.
Appoint an Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy and strengthen the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. (http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/reform/)
well then, evolution doesn't accept ron paul, so there!
mudshark @ 47:
I'm saying "alien space craft" based on what Shirley McClain said about the incident. She said DK felt he had had some sort of communication with....something or someone at the time of the encounter. That tells me DK thought he was dealing with something more than just an unidentified object in the sky. Personally I don't have a problem with his account as I think we are visited by some sort of intelligent beings frequently, based on the number of credible (like DK's) reports. Otherwise we need to come up with a better explanation as to why so many otherwise sane folks are reporting these very strange encounters, other than, "oh well, they just misidentified some 'normal' phenomenon."
Where do the candidates stand on initiating force against other nations to extract needed values?
"Do you consider genocide a reasonable tool for capturing oil reserves belonging to other nations?"
"If not, would you fall for it, if put under pressure?"
OK, and now for the Dems!
"Who's you're Daddy? SAY MY NAME, BITCH."
"Thanks for coming out tonight to moderate our debate, President Bush."
Who would Jesus bomb for oil?
Lollimom @ 2:
Well, considering that a leader should be able to use and trust experts in their related fields in making policy decisions, it is not a good idea to have a leader who rejects the evidence and opinions of scientific experts.
It's more than just science. It is a rejection of logic, evidence, and best judgment. We need a leader who has excellent judgment.
Mahatma Gandhi is Ron Paul's hero.
Mahatma Gandhi said:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Phase Three has well and truly begun.
bob @ 79:
That's an evasive non-answer. It also makes you look like a snob. You may well be right. But I'll never know that, nor will others, because it's an evasive non-answer. The commenter does not seem to pretend to be an expert in science. But his English skills are satisfactory. "Condescend" was an appropriate word.
Otay @ 87:
An atheist president would be sweet. Why must we suffer any dishonest religious mysticism? Until an honest atheist can win, the issue of belief in evolution remains a non-issues while each and every candidate pays public homage to the ancient sky-gods.
What book would an incriminated atheist president carry into court?
ysbaddaden @ 91:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_R._Wallace#The_Honesty_Oath
Actually the Law of Gravity was controversial in Newton's time, because he didn't quite understand the force itself, and many of his contemporaries thought it sounded rather occultic, astrology or rays of powers a'la Helen Petrovna Blavatsky and Eliphas Levi (no he didn't creat the jeans).
Even now some scientists argue between the natural magnetism of the earth, some sort of sub-atomic particle or wave, or something like the momentum of the earth's orbit being responsible.
The primary difference between a law and a theory in science was their time periods. They're both primarily explanations of phenomena. The difference is their time periods like the 17th century vs the 19th century vs the 21st century.
A theory explains an existing observation and predicts new ones, a hypothesis is a working assumption. Creationism/CIntelligent Designm explains nothing and predicts nothing.
HP Blavatsky and Eliphas Levi were later figures.
I do not believe in evolution.
Evolution is not a matter of belief, it is a scientific fact.
Not "believing" in evolution is like not believing in gravity.
Huck(ster)by and the rest are crazy.
They are both theories, does it really matter which one someone believes? That's like saying "I believe the furtherest star from us is red." and then having someone else say "I believe the furtherest star from us is yellow.". What is the point of fighting over these theories?
To me, it matters not what you believe so long as you don't go around imposing your beliefs onto other people that don't want to hear it.
One might make more sense to you, but that doesn't make it correct. It's just like the "9/11 official theory vs. 9/11 thruthers theory". Again, they are both theories, neither has been proven scientifically. Mainly because of lack of evidence on both sides of the isle. Yet you will find people on both sides that are sure their theory is right.
So in essence, looking down on someone for belief in a theory is pretty lame. And believing in a theory that isn't backed up by evidence it pretty lame. People that dwell on these kinds of issues are pretty lame. We should all be working together to find the real provable answer and put all these theories to rest instead of bickering about who is most right at the time.
96 Understand
You're just arguing the Logical Phallusy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Howiekurtznot @ 95:
Do you believe in the existence of supernatural beings? Would you vote for a candidate that claimed to? Who prayed to them? Who in the field of candidates would remain?
Brad @ 98:
Praise Bob!
ysbaddaden @ 99:
My personal disposable savior!
Who cares about evolution? Give it a break.
We have been created the same from the beginning and it will be the same end.
These scientists are fiddling with the elements that G-d created and yet, do not believe in his existence.
The problem I would have about subscribing to mystical beliefs, like the existence of gods and creationism, is that it appears to require the suspension of the honesty process-- of putting facts into proper context, requisite to establishing an effective interface with reality.
Gods aren't the only fake external authorities politicians defer responsibility of thinking to. Some appear overwhelmed by, and mystically defer to, the pressures of other politicians, and of the mob.
We USA citizens have the Constitution for The United States as our king, our authority. That is what most concerns me, performance in loyalty to the laws for our country. That is the job.
Hasn't our country gotten itself in enough trouble, being run by people who reject reality?
I mean, seriously, should we continue, and go for broke?
Otay @ 103:
Go broke-ER?
Brad @ 104:
Sure, let's see how low we can go.
How broke we can go? How far can we plow ourselves into debt?
Brad @ 106:
Good point. I was trying to deflect it with feigned indifference, but I'll be sincere now: No More Reality-Challenged People Running Government! Our country nor our scientific and technological standing in the world cannot survive it.
So Ron doesn't "accept" modern biology?
An extremely cogent, elementally sound, well-vetted (for over a hundred years by tens of thousands of brilliant scientific minds) explanation of how nature changes the forms of life isn't good enough for him?
It's got to really suck to be a Ron apologist. (A rational one anyway)
So a techno breakthrough will salvage the economy, if we throw money at it?
"Where do the candidates stand on evolution?"
The real question is: How bent over are the R candidates?
9iu11iani and the rest have to use a special cream for their knuckles.
EZ @ 101 "Who cares about evolution? Give it a break."
Have you ever taken an antibiotic?
"We have been created the same from the beginning"
Right, G-d just put the cockroach genes in us for a laugh.
"These scientists are fiddling with the elements that G-d created and yet, do not believe in his existence."
Please stay out of our hospitals. If you get sick, go to church.
Government should leave scientists alone. Let them work with competitive business to deliver their life-saving advances.
Howiekurtznot @ 95 "Not "believing" in evolution is like not believing in gravity."
Not a very good example. Gravity is not a force, it's an effect.
Evolution is not a 'theory,' except as a manner of speaking. It's a fact, as provable as any fact you can imagine, and FAR more provable than the theory of existence of G-d (without or without His O).
Brad @ 109:
More like, a leader who rejects reality and has his hands on the reigns of government and the pocketbook of our scientific institutions, is probably going to be a detriment to our country, its scientific institutions, and the citizens who look to our "leaders" for direction to go in their own lives.
Besides institutions, someone at the head of government, rightly or wrongly, can negatively influence its citizens in what they value.
Brad @ 112:
Many of our scientific and technological advances are brought about not by corporations, who often can't see more than a few inches beyond the next shareholder profit earnings and report, but by universities. Corporations are, by-and-large, not innovative entities. They are very conservative entities. But they are good at mass-producing innovations.
'Go with God' means 'I won't take responsibility for my own actions'
It is so easy, and within the nature of humanity, to surrender our personal control and direction of our lives and culture to the ether. 'Some' compare this to Naziism. (a la Fox news, lol) To be lead blindly. The church has repressed science for millenia, and put to death those who oppose their point of view. Call this the south.
Let me toss something out there. Why is extraterrestrial contact constantly covered up? What if extraterrestrial life exists? Then God and religion flies out the door. Religion would be a myth relegated to a product of molded rye, hallucinogenic imagination. In this universe of 100 billion galaxies, containing 100 billion stars, like our own milkyway, there must be further (and superior) intelligence. Maybe they have a 'God.' Maybe theirs is the true one. Maybe none exists.
Otay @ 115:
Forgot to mention that many of these universities are government supported. Not to mention that there are many government labs taking over the long-term research that corporations are too conservative to fund.
EZ @ 101:
Many scientists believe in god and many christians support evolution. The catholic church itself has admitted that the evidence is strong and that the church has no problem with it.
I understand that it's an emotional issue for those raised to believe that most of science is wrong (astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, genetics, archeology, paleontology, etc, etc) but you take the time to study the issue before you parrot anyone's talking points.
I know a great deal about the views of creationists just as I know a thing or two about evolution. It's an interesting subject. If you take the time to honestly review the evidence though, youll find that it isnt even close; Evolution is correct.
Say what you like on a message board but only you know whether or not youve honestly investigated the issue.
The whole question smacks of creationism to begin with. You don't *believe* in science, you either accept and understand it, or you don't. Ironically, my Fundie friends use gravity as an example of something you should believe in, probably on the assumption that stuff falling down = gravity. Lol. There's less specification for Universal Gravitation than there is for Universal Common Descent (Macroevolution for Creationist Proconsuls). For that matter, there's no proof even of what causes gravity, no graviton to compare to the electron for electricity and the proton and neutron for atomic bombs. Yet, for evolution, there is the basic fact that all life on Earth from the bacteria to the great whales carry the same genetic material from 20 amino acids out of thousands. And there's also the fact that humans are but a single animal species that is highly evolved to do what it does. Bacteria, lions, mushrooms, rhododendrons, Common Chimpanzees, and humans are all equally evolved to their certain specifications.
That in a nutshell is why Creationists hate evolution.
primal dream @ 89:
Ridiculous. This person knows NOTHING of science. It would be like trying to explain algebra to a fish. It is not condescending for me to suggest that this person needs to look at basic science in an organized fashion and learn the basic vocabulary before engaging one who HAS studied such, whose brothers and cousins and parents and grandparents have studied such and to then be called condescending by someone with less than an 8th grader's understanding of the subject is absurd.
Talcott @ 72:
Oh, yes, Ken Ham is definitely a staunch, militant atheist. So is Kent Hovind and Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee. Staunch atheists those literalists, yes sir! /sarcasm off.
General_Rennenkampf @ 121:
Obviosly deluded indviduals, and yes indeed I realized my assertion cut's both way's. :)
There are plenty of literalist foolish fundies.
Talcott @ 72:
No. Its the staunch religious who take the writing of religion ( the bilbe) literally. They hold vipers to the throats of their children and deny them medical services in the name of 'God.' Of course people are spiritual. We are spiritual beings. Spirituality does not necessarily mean God. I am a Christian. But I am slowly being drawn away from God, not spirituality, as I see what politics, republicans, Bushies, wielding God as a weapon on the American people.
General_Rennenkampf @ 119:
Actually, that has been proven, where have you been?
The bending of space-time by mass was proven by solar observations decades ago.
garcia @ 60:
Ah, yes, phylosophy, which supposedly recapitulates ontosophy.
Paul in LA @ 124:
I don't believe the "cause" of gravity has been discovered. Its effect is essentially what makes the universe work and is observed. The first thing scientists are trying to do is to discover the duality of the graviton, particle/wave duality. Incorporating gravity into Einstein's standard model is the 'holy grail' of physics. What is proven, however, is the gravity of the argument of this thread. Evolution is hard science, creationism is sneaky religion.
Lollimom @ 25:
Not only do I agree with Doug, but it is absolutley paramount that the leader of a country allow science to progress. Look how Bush has held us back from stem cell research.
I think it is absolutley insane that we live in a country in which families elect to teach their child from the home that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or that a man named Noah whom was 600 years old put 2 of all the 6 billion species that ever existed on to a fishing vessel. How will these people function?
bob @ 120:
I laughed very hard at this; It would be like trying to explain algebra to a fish. Next arguement with my evangelical friend I am using it. There is hope for the fish however. I happen to know quite a few former fish, my parents for one. Mainly due to non-exposure, not dogmatic reasons. I gave them a copy of Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything. I think the history coorelation factor helped them. They are now salamanders.
If you cut open a blue whale, you'll find some small hind leg bones in the blubber.
That's why evolution is rather plausable.
Cas @ 129:
Sounds like a description of Limbaugh.
Cas @ 129:
Here is some Carl for the non-believers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYzx6C4irsI
Paul in LA @ 124:
Perhaps I should have clarified what I meant. Certain electromagnetic functions have beren shown to have a particle which causes them. Visible light has photons. Electricity electrons. Magnetism to have a magnetic field, and the different wavelengths of gamma rays, X rays, radio waves, and infrared waves have all been shown directly to cause their associated phenomena.
While the bending of light by mass is proven, the specific particle or wave associated with that mass's bending spacetime to beginwith has not. There's no Gravitational wave or gravitational particle to challenge these things.
'ashes to ashes, dust to dust'. I am pretty sure I know what ashes the Bush admin was formed from, can anyone say poop?
Huckabee doesn't have a 'stand' on evolution, he falls flat on his ass on evolution.
Preacher Bob:
Jessie Davis, a 27-year-old mother of three from Inman, S.C., held her youngest, 8-month old Abbie, in her arms. Davis said the No. 1 thing that attracted her to Huckabee was "Christian values."
"He's going to ask God what do before he asks somebody else," Davis said after the rally. "God designed everything. He knows how it's supposed to work."
It's scary to think that this type of voter may put him in the White House!
MS @ 126:
String theory has a number of predictions about gravitons, but they have not been detected. The hunt is on, but it's difficult, because they interact so weakly (gravity is actually an very weak force).
There are attempts to detect gravity waves; see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton#Experimental_observation
EZ @ 101:
Lay off the EZ Widers.
fwacbar @ 133:
Funny thing is according to tradition Lilith and her lilim (demons) were created from waste.
Apparently Adam was spanking his monkey in the Garden, and Lilith was the result.
It was the first virgin birth.
In otherwords, he was then boinking his own daughter.
Of course, he had some link to Adam Kadmon in the Hebraic version of the macrocosmic/microcosmic schemata.
Lilith had her link to the Shekhina (the bride of G-D).
And supposedly there was an Eve the Elder who I can't find much about, however, she never lived as far as I know. Adam actually watched her being put together, and got grossed out at the sight and copped a run, supposedly the first running out on the old lady before the old lady was even up and running.
Supposedly that's why he was conked when Eve the Younger was created from a rib.
Was G-d the first short-order cook in a barbeque?
I insist we put all this into Sunday School textbooks.
Brad @ 100:
His Book of the SubGenius is my favorite read on the toilet.
Brad @ 109:
So we're all waiting with baited breath for the Second Coming of Missing Persons and the Eurhythmics?
Do we have to eat worms to have bated breaths?
Then that would mean I would have to resign my title as Master Bater.
Don't mind me, I'm just diddling with my oblongata.
No that's not a title to an old Iron Butterfly song.
I think it was the Beatles oblongata oblongdee.
General_Rennenkampf @ 132:
Is that supposed to be surprising? It's not a force, it's an effect, and the lack of a particle is part of the proof of that.
Light, emf, those are forms of energy. Gravity is NOT a form of energy.
Gorgei @ 127:
Indeed. The movie Idiocracy is going to come true if we don't change.
I wonder how many say they don't believe just to make the religious majority happy, but actually do believe?
Comments are closed on this entry