Which Presidential hopefuls don't believe in evolution?

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by freeztar

fair enough...

Religion does not matter to me either. Evolution does though! Regardless of whether one dismisses evolution on religious grounds or otherwise, it lessens (if not obliterates) their credibility in my eyes. Likewise, I would be shocked if a politician openly dismissed gravity or cellular metabolism (they would not get my vote). It shows a sign of weakness imo.
Once beliefs are besieged by reason, then it is foolish to cling to such beliefs. I'd rather not have another fool heading up the country.

my first post on this thread, indicated a desire to see science an issue in politics, which I'll hold to. the practical problem is most people, have no idea or could explain why the sun sets.

Ross Perot, in his third party effort, had many problems but one was his theory to cool the planet. "use jet plans to slow the planet". i have no idea where he came up with this, but he had to have some interest in science to visualize the possibility. he lost more creditability over this issue, but was never asked how he would achieve, that i know of anyway.

another fool, i guess is Bush II being the first. i would agree his faith has been a problem, if actions are based on this principle. here however, were in a tug of war with another religious entity, which with his determination on any grounds is to free peoples. along with the economic implications which he should also understand. this is why i say, he was the right person for the time he served in, if even a coincidence.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by jackson33

my first post on this thread, indicated a desire to see science an issue in politics, which I'll hold to. the practical problem is most people, have no idea or could explain why the sun sets.

Which is why we (as a whole) always need more education. It's accepted that uneducated/ignorant thoughts will proliferate in our communities, but I will never vote on them. I do not think that evolution should be taken out of scientific studies and will vote in opposition if need be.

Ross Perot, in his third party effort, had many problems but one was his theory to cool the planet. "use jet plans to slow the planet". i have no idea where he came up with this, but he had to have some interest in science to visualize the possibility. he lost more creditability over this issue, but was never asked how he would achieve, that i know of anyway.

He'd seen Superman too many times!

another fool, i guess is Bush II being the first. i would agree his faith has been a problem, if actions are based on this principle. here however, were in a tug of war with another religious entity, which with his determination on any grounds is to free peoples. along with the economic implications which he should also understand. this is why i say, he was the right person for the time he served in, if even a coincidence.

I was being tongue-in-cheek with my last sentence. I don't think Dubya is a fool. I think he is self-contradictory, ill-spoken, and hard-edged, but I know he's no fool. And if he were, he would not be the first...
I don't understand you're last two sentences, but I feel we digress...

Food for thought:
At least 15 US presidents did not believe in evolution. The number is most likely much higher than this.

[InfiniteNow]

Skip the 15 second ad, watch the entire debate here:

The 2008 GOP Presidential Debate MAY 03, 2007 - Presented by MSNBC


It's like a coca-cola ad with candidates, but not so delicious.


And for you "free time challenged" viewers:

YouTube - GOP Debate - Evolution Question

[Buffy]

Breaking News: Mitt Romney is in deep unga for not coming out against evolution at the debate with the Christian Broadcasting Network (Pat Robertson's news/talk cable channel)....

All the people all the time is not a family value,
Buffy

[TheBigDog]

When is this same question going to be posed to the Democratic party candidates? Of course they have now had a preview of the proper way to answer...

But that is just an aside. Why is it necessary for Creation and Evolution to be mutually exclusive? If pressed it is a safe bet that the men in question do not deny the science of evolution, but they also believe that man was Created by God and is not an outcropping of Evolution. Does religious belief in Man's creation, but scientific respect for the facts of genetic evolution (outside of man) make a person unelectable? Does it speak to a character flaw, or trying to come to terms with religious doctrine that you were raised with?

I am not defending Creation, I am defending the right to believe in creation and not be a backward, science-rejecting dolt.

Bill

[Zythryn]

Very good point Bill. Believing in creationism certainly does not automatically mean denying evolution.
If 10 of 10 canidates said they believe god created us, I would not be nearly as concerned as I am with the 3 that answered that they did NOT believe the science of evolution.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Very good point Bill. Believing in creationism certainly does not automatically mean denying evolution.
If 10 of 10 canidates said they believe god created us, I would not be nearly as concerned as I am with the 3 that answered that they did NOT believe the science of evolution.

Part of the problem is how the question was asked. With just a "show of hands" for everyone but McCain, the others had to make the momentary decision about how they would answer, with no opportunity to clarify. In that moment, when raising your hand, do you want to be interpreted as denying Creation, even if you do believe in Evolution? See Buffy's post about the admonishment of Mitt. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Bill

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

When is this same question going to be posed to the Democratic party candidates? Of course they have now had a preview of the proper way to answer...

I agree it should be. I actually like the journalists that have been chosen to lead the debates, but they've been less evenhanded than in just about all previous elections. Brian Williams has been thumped (rightly in my mind) about asking very leading questions about both the "partial-birth" abortion ruling--saying that "Americans agree with the decision" which is only backed by a minority of polls--and by phrasing the question of support of abortion as "would you use support of Roe v. Wade as a litmus test". On the Republican side, the question was phrased mostly as "would you repeal Roe v. Wade" which could have been seen as biased too, but the Republican base seems to eat that up, so it was good for the candidates.

This is not your mommy's debate any more.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Why is it necessary for Creation and Evolution to be mutually exclusive? If pressed it is a safe bet that the men in question do not deny the science of evolution, but they also believe that man was Created by God and is not an outcropping of Evolution. Does religious belief in Man's creation, but scientific respect for the facts of genetic evolution (outside of man) make a person unelectable? Does it speak to a character flaw, or trying to come to terms with religious doctrine that you were raised with?

Not at all, and of course its funny when some fringe folks on the right attack people like John Edwards faith because he can't be "for abortion" or "against creationism" and be religious.

Being religious is not the issue, being anti-science and promoting policies that denigrate science in a society that is increasingly dependent upon very sophisticated use of science is *dangerous*. Unfortunately, creationism tends to force believers of it into that mode, and that makes them less well qualified to handle a job that requires people who base their decisions not just on faith but on scientific data as well.

A candidate that said "my religious beliefs say that God created the universe for man's benefit" but also believed that God carried this out via evolution of a 13 billion year old creation, I would have no problem voting for (although a human centric-worldview would make me worry about his environmental positions, but that's a separate issue). The problem comes with denial of all the science that says that, no, the earth is not 6000 years old, and there's no way there was a whole world flood that covered Mt. Everest. That sort of person would make me pretty certain that in order to maintain their faith that they probably will deny the validity of science rather broadly whenever they feel like it. And to hide this behind a belief that their religion *requires* this belief does not seem to be supportable either, so it belies a belief in the superiority of their religion over others which is horrible in a pluralistic society.

I don't think it's fair to say that not wanting to vote for someone who "believes in creationism" is the same as not wanting to vote for someone who "is religious" although that's the way it always gets framed for very self-serving purposes.

Over the top invective does not help us.

Supports "killing babies,"
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Part of the problem is how the question was asked. With just a "show of hands" for everyone but McCain, the others had to make the momentary decision about how they would answer, with no opportunity to clarify. In that moment, when raising your hand, do you want to be interpreted as denying Creation, even if you do believe in Evolution?

Just to be clear, the debate moderator directed the initial question to Senator McCain, explaining that the question came from a Politico.com reader and was among the top vote getters in the early rounds for questions to be posed. He indicated that they wanted a “Yes or No” answer. The question was then posed…

“Do you believe in evolution?”

McCain hesitated a few moments, and then said, “Yes.”

At which point, the moderator stated, “I’m curious. Is there anybody on the stage that does NOT believe in evolution?” At which time, three presidential hopefuls (Senator Sam Brownback, Governor Mike Huckabee, and Representative Tom Tancredo) each raised their hands.

Nobody prompted them to respond with “just a show of hands,” and they actually had longer to think about how to respond to the question than McCain did since he was asked first (and responded to the question within moments).

See my “free time challenged” link above for verification of my synopsis above.

Belief in evolution should require no clarification.

Creationism is a cancer on the mind and on society as evidenced in the clip above.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

If pressed it is a safe bet that the men in question do not deny the science of evolution…

I’ll take this a step further, and be willing to bet that the politicians in question would answer the question differently depending on circumstances. Were the question “do you believe the theory of evolution is correct” asked before a gathering of the Union of Concerned Scientists, I’d predict near-unanimous affirmation by candidates of either party. Were it asked at a gathering of Fundamentalist Jews, Christians, or Muslims, I’d predict near-unanimous negation (assuming they were confident that neither gathering was being recorded).

For the majority of politicians, I think, the purpose of speech (or hand raising) is to promote their election to office. Though not appearing dishonest figures strongly into this, I don’t think what a politician claims to believe and what they actually believe are strongly correlated. In short, politicians lie.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

When is this same question going to be posed to the Democratic party candidates? Of course they have now had a preview of the proper way to answer...

Actually, I don’t believe the proper way to answer – the response that, communicated to all voters, will increase the number of votes the politician receives - is at all a settled question. Some variation of the evasive “I believe science has its place, as does religion” is likely the right answer – as TBD and others note, a rather hard one to convey in a quick show of hands

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Does religious belief in Man's creation, but scientific respect for the facts of genetic evolution (outside of man) make a person unelectable? Does it speak to a character flaw, or trying to come to terms with religious doctrine that you were raised with?

I am not defending Creation, I am defending the right to believe in creation and not be a backward, science-rejecting dolt.

One who believes that human beings, unique among animals, were created in their current form, and have undergone no significant evolutionary change, rejects a major theory of the science of evolutionary biology. Many very intelligent, un-doltish people believe this, as do many dolts. Both are rejecting an important, overwhelmingly accepted scientific theory.

In my experience, many well-trained biologists are both highly accepting of the theory of evolution, and the existence of a divine creator. Nearly all of them reconcile the two by assuming an act of divine creation far predating the development of complex life on Earth, with little or no divine intervention in natural processes since that act – “the clockwork God” model, or a variation, in other words.

Although the idea that a deity might subtly effect natural processes such as evolution – some version of “intelligent design” - appears to my inexpert analysis to be not unreasonable, nearly all the biologists I know seem to abhor it. I think this is because ID is associated with activists believed – in many cases with good cause - to have the goal of undermining scientific education and credibility, discrediting any serious scientific investigation of its hypotheses.