In the Agora has a post entitled Where do you stand on evolution? The post notes that three of the Republican hopefuls don’t believe in evolution — Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Anyone who is so anti-science as to not believe in evolution just flat out can’t be trusted with the Presidency.
That’s a bit of a rash statement, I think. You have to realize that there exists millions of Americans who do not believe in evolution, and an entire sector of science devoted to testing the theory of evolution – approaching it as a theory. There is – at least at this nation’s premier medical and science institutions – some doubt as to the theory of evolution as it stands with adaptation. Most accept the theory of natural selection. But to say that not believing in evolution is “anti-science” is to only tell half of the story. I understand where you are coming from, but this issue simply isn’t scientifically solved at this point beyond the shadow of a doubt.
If they don’t believe in evolution then they don’t take antibiotics. Why would they? If evolution doesn’t happen then antibiotics shouldn’t work.
C’mon Doug, you know better than that.
I hold the same positions as you with regard to evolution and science, but choosing a candidate is always more complex than basing it on a single issue.
How about the Democrat candidates?
They all want to repeal the Bush tax cuts which have proven to be the biggest economic stimulus this country has seen since the Reagan era, which was also produced by tax cuts. Unemployment is down, average wages are up, and government receipts are WAY up.
Without the tax cuts, the government will have less to spend, period.
Anyone who wants to repeals those cuts shouldn’t be trusted with the Presidency either.
I think anyone who cannot learn how to use the adjectival form of the noun “Democrat” cannot be trusted to post to this blog.
Believing in God and accepting Evolution as a scentific theory are not mutually exclusive,so not accepting Evolution as a theory(and understanding what ‘theory’ is) should question a candidate’s ability to think clearly.Evolution is part of basic education.
Acknowledging the scientific principle of evolution is pretty much a litmus test with me. If they want to dispute the nuances of it, that’s fine. If you are also religious, that’s not at all a deal breaker.
I just can’t accept a candidate who puts his fingers in his ears and sings “la la la” in the face of science that tends to contradict his chosen beliefs. This isn’t like a debate on the best tax policy. This is more like a candidate who says that taxation is always theft and the government can’t ever do it.
The tax cuts were less stimulative than other measures would have been, such as spending on infrastructure upgrades. Plus, the tax cuts came at the expense of running up the debt. If you maxed out your credit cards with cash advances, and gave the proceeds to your friends and family to spend, that would be stimulative, too. It would also be stupid.
There isn’t, on the whole, debate in leading scientific and medical institutions about evolution. It is rightly held as the central theory of the life sciences. Being able to find a fringe scientist here and there does not mean there is any serious doubt that evolution is occurring, and has been since life arose. If you don’t accept it, then you either haven’t seriously studied it–or your faith is so strong that you cannot be convinced by any amount of evidence. We’ve already done that for six years, with God himself whispering sweet, devine war instructions to President Bush. Six years of that has been six years too many. If God’s telling you evolution is a sham in one breath, who knows what he’ll say in the next?
Craig-
You put it incorrectly when you wrote-
“If evolution doesn’t happen then antibiotics shouldn’t work.” Sure they would, in fact antibiotics would remain fully effective year after year. But antibiotics don’t continue to work year after year but instead lose their effectiveness. This is because they are improperly used which in turn allows antibiotic resistant strains of pathogens to survive (or more typically, given how most antibiotics work, to continue to reproduce) and thereby the species evolves. Evolution is an “enemy” of antibiotics.
I agree with Doug that positions on evolution can be very nuanced, including believing it means there’s no God to believing God is still involved somehow, either by establishing the plan in advance or by interjecting seemingly “randon” mutations along the way. The moderator’s apparent question, “do you believe in evolution,” didn’t allow for any nuance. It wouldn’t even allow for the possibility of believing in “evolution” but not natural selection…although I suspect persons like Brownback certainly did mean to suggest they reject the theory of evolution by natural selection in toto & hold creationist beliefs.
As for tax cuts, I still find it curious that Clinton & the Dems were able to raise taxes slightly in 1993, and what followed not only was balanced federal budgets (helped of course by spending cuts) but also the longest sustained period of economic growth in the country’s history (i.e. the longest period without a recession of any kind)…
Although I like Tancredo’s stance on illegal immigration I can’t agree with him or these fellows on this issue.I believe a few years ago and someone can correct me if I’m wrong that a school board in Kansas voted to prohibit the teaching of evolution in their school and the next time they sought re-election were promptly voted out.
I am glad Tancredo is running for President though if only to put the spotlight on the Democratic and most of the Republican Presidential candidates views on illegal immigration.It is a issue that needs to be debated.On CNN Candy Crowly (not sure of spelling) had a good piece on how the Presidential candidates are really catching hell in Iowa on this issue!
Glenn wrote:
The moderator’s apparent question, “do you believe in evolution,†didn’t allow for any nuance………………………….
But does a candidate like Brownback think with nuances? I would guess his supporters don’t… He must say he is against Evolution because that’s a liberal thing.I grew up in this kind of milieu.It’s a scary world to look back at, when all nuance was ‘liberal’.Nuance was a matter of presentation to others,never of belief.
Nuance is for eggheads. Nuance is for girlie liberals. Simplicity and certainty is more appropriate for manly conservatives.
You know what he ment. No need to be elitest with spealing and gammer :)
I don’t understand. I have my own litmus tests, but they are usually about things like life and death (abortion) or things that I think have a huge impact on this country (tax policy, etc).
Why do people (I know many people feel the same way as Doug) get so upset when someone refuses the idea of creation through evolution?
I think everyone agrees that evolution exists, the disconnect is over where life came from, not evolution. If someone says that they think evolution is real but think that man was created by God, do they pass the test?
I guess could better compare it to someone saying “That was is north” when they are pointing west. I can know they are wrong, but it doesn’t hurt me. What does creation hurt? What harm is being done when someone is elected that thinks we are created?
Another post in the blog Doug referenced put it better than I can:
I think the “3” didn’t understand the question and took it differently than Doug did.
For me, the question that really needs to be answered is this. When the observed truth of the scientific method contradicts the revealed truth of the Bible, which one are you going to choose?
The Soviets were nuanced enough to believe in Moscow man, and Nazis nuanced evolution into Social Darwinism. Please take your conformity and acquiescence – I’ll take faith, conviction and courage any day.
Using ‘Democrat’ for the adjective instead of ‘Democratic’ is what may be ‘elitist’.It’s no longer a Southern religionalism ,but a backhanded coded slur against the Democratic Party.I’ve been in too many political chat groups not to know how it’s intended.
It’s not that this should be a big issue in itself,but there are so many cases like this where there’s an attempt to code the language for core believers.
I do translations on occasion and if I were translating ‘Democrat Party’ into French I’d have to give a note of explanation to indicate the implications.No wonder a war can start over a bad translation!
The article on Augustine (354CE-430CE), Bishop of Hippo, in the Wikipedia quotes the following from the Bishop’s works:
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”
– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
Taking a libertarian stance, I wouldn’t, in general, care what a person believes on the subject (although, quite obviously, Coyote created the different tribes of man by decimating the body of a river monster he had vanquished). My concern with the responses of the politicians is when people in a position to dictate what is or isn’t taught in our schools want to include not just “observable science” but one particular “faith-based” belief (theirs). I would put a check in the column of the politician who answered “whether or not I believe in evolution is irrelevant; what is important is that I believe scientific theory should be taught in schools and religios theory taught outside of them.”
I think an immediate dismissal of evolutionary theory shows ignorance and a lack of critical thinking.
I think a better question for these guys would be “Are you a Young Earther?” In other words do you believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Anyone that answers in the affirmative to THAT question is surely not fit to be President.
I lived in Kansas for 20+ years and feel that a Brownback presidency would be more catastrophic than the current presidency…
The Iraq War was started because our President had “faith” that WMD were being made, despite the lack of evidence being found by the inspectors who were actually ON THE GROUND at the purported weapons sites. It is very important to know whether a candidates faith can be shaken by pesky little details like facts and evidence to the contrary. The evoluton question can give insight into that.
Thanks, T, you answered my question. I was getting ready to respond to #19 asking, “But what danger is there in that?”, but you answered me without asking. Thanks again.
So, the idea is that a “faithless” person is better suited for the office. Even being someone of faith, I can get behind that. If the president ONLY did things by solid reason and did nothing on faith, that would be fine.
However, everyone should know that just as many ideas on the “left” rely on some type of faith as things on the “right”. A “faithless” president would allow very few laws to be passed, and I think that might be a good thing.
Again I must point out that there is a difference in having faith in God and putting faith in doctrine.It seems the more conservative religiously one is ,the the more God and doctrine are inseparable and therein lies the danger to secular government,which protects us all from the one God,one doctrine mandate the conservative Christians would impose on us all.
A President doesn’t have to be “faithless”. But if one insists that the Earth is only a few thousand years old despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, then that person has shown that their faith outweighs everything else in their decision making process.
And THAT certainly should disqualify you from the presidency.
As Secretary Albright said – “Armageddon is not a foreign policy”
Also, if you believe that environmental policy isn’t necessary because either: a)Jesus put everything on Earth for us to use (and He would be offended if we refused his gifts), b)Jesus is coming soon, so we couldn’t possibly damage the Earth *that much* before his arrival, c)God will clean it up, or d)Humans are so small that we can’t possibly be adversely altering God’s creation–then you need not apply. These ideas may seem crazy to most. But James Inhoffe managed to get elected holding beliefs such as these, and become a key congressional policy maker on environmental policy.
Actually, I like having “Young Earthers” and the like represented in the debates. It’s not so much what they say, but how the other candidates react, that is telling. If they can’t find it within themselves to say “That’s crazy!”, that says a lot.
Let us be clear, there is NO scientific evidence that disproves God, or that disproves a “young earth”. Scientific evidence might support that idea, but religious teachings such as “God created the Grand Caynon in a form much as it exists today” are just as supportive to a person of faith. Belief of that kind of statement requires no more faith than faith in God already requires. So, if you say “I don’t mind if someone thinks God is real, but they MUST NOT support ‘young earth'”, then you are making a slightly silly statement. One requires no more faith than the other.
As to T’s point, yes, some people have used agruements A,B and C. However, MANY Christains use arguement D: We were charged with caring for all of creation, and the condition we keep it in is a reflection of how well we are doing our job. God gave us creation and we must do everything we can do take care of that gift.
Lou, you are also correct that God and doctrine are seperate, and God even pointed out as Jesus how following doctrine that is created by people can be dangerous. Jesus spoke out against “religion” as much as anything. However, I don’t see why young earth / old earth is a part of that.
To me, my faith and understanding of creation doesn’t require anyone’s approval. It doesn’t change the cost of tea, and I really don’t know why so many people on BOTH SIDES get so upset about it. Big bang or “Let there…”, we’re all here, and we really can’t do much about the “How, when, why or where” of it. What matters is today and the future.
Jason wrote: To me, my faith and understanding of creation doesn’t require anyone’s approval.
But approval must be the end result of law making after discussion and negotiation or government ceases to function.
There’s no scientific evidence to support the theory that the earth is approximately 6000 years old. There is a wealth of scientific evidence that it is much, much older. For some, any amount of evidence will always fall short of “proof”. But science provides a whole lot of evidence for an old earth, and none for a young one. Given the Grand Canyon example, there’s carbon dating of rocks, observation of the number and location of strata deposited by sedimentation, DNA studies of species that have been fragmented by the canyon, etc. The “evidence” for the Grand Canyon being only 6000 years old is that it sure looks old, but since it’s on earth and earth is only 6000 years old, it can only be 6000 years old.
“God created the Grand Caynon in a form much as it exists today†are just as supportive to a person of faith. Belief of that kind of statement requires no more faith than faith in God already requires. So, if you say “I don’t mind if someone thinks God is real, but they MUST NOT support ‘young earth’â€, then you are making a slightly silly statement. One requires no more faith than the other.”
What is silly is equating a belief in God to the belief in Young Earth. They are two separate issues and while one may not require more faith than the other, believing the Earth is 6000 years old certainly requires a willful ignorance.
The scientific evidence against the Young Earthers is overwhelming and frankly indisputable to nearly everyone. Belief in god is a philosophical argument as it’s existence can’t be study scientifically.
In this context there’s no comparison…
If one requires no more faith than the other, then why is one willfull ignorance?
If the earth was created, then it could have been created in any form.
It sounds like you are saying “You can have a god, you can pray to a god, but you CAN’T assume God has no limits, such as being able to create in any form”. Most religions claim that of their god, so I’m not sure what type of religion you are saying is OK or what kind of religion isn’t willful ignorance.
If your point is, “I can’t understand why anyone would believe in a god”, then I get it. But if you are saying that someone can only beleive to a point, then I’m a bit confused.
It’s quite simple, in one case you can test the idea – the earth is not 6000 years old – in the other case there is no test – existence of god.
Even more succinctly – one is within the realm of science and the other isn’t…