Republican Debates - Evolution

[john5746]

Three of the 10 Republican candidates raised their hand to show they did not believe in evolution. They apparently did not feel the need to expand on their answer, although it was a Yes/No request, everyone expanded on requests like that before. McCain, who said "yes" that he does believe in evolution, felt the need to expand his answer, by saying the Hand of God is present in a sunset.

 

Assuming they are not just pandering to a group, does it matter if a President has so little grasp on science?

 

 

Edited: clarify McCain's answer

[Haezed]

Three of the 10 Republican candidates raised their hand to show they did not believe in evolution. They did not feel the need to expand on their answer. McCain, who said "yes", felt the need to expand his answer, by saying the Hand of God is present in a sunset.

 

Assuming they are not just pandering to a group, does it matter if a President has so little grasp on science?

 

I missed the debate. Who else said yes?

 

I do think it matters although I think they are pandering.

[john5746]

Sorry, I edited the OP to reflect that McCain answer that he believes in evolution.

 

Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo These guys raised their hand indicating they did not believe in evolution.

[ParanoiA]

Assuming they are not just pandering to a group, does it matter if a President has so little grasp on science?

 

Yes it matters. I'd prefer my president not shrink and shuck the complications and logic of science down to the childish simplicity of "god did it"...

 

I would however accept a president that suggests the idea of god in some form. There would be nothing concerning about that.

[theCPE]

The grasp of science that politicians have only concerns people when the politician doesn't agree with them.

 

I wonder which people are concerned by gore's lack of scientific knowledge....

[ParanoiA]

The grasp of science that politicians have only concerns people when the politician doesn't agree with them.

 

Well yeah...if the politician doesn't agree with science, obviously that's when people get concerned. Science, as a study, doesn't have a party or a "point of view", it either is or isn't.

 

I wonder which people are concerned by gore's lack of scientific knowledge....

 

I think you're confusing lack of prudence for lack of knowledge.

[Dr. Dalek]

Yes it matters. I'd prefer my president not shrink and shuck the complications and logic of science down to the childish simplicity of "god did it"...

 

Well uh what about specialization? After all a botanist can discuss biology and perform their job easily and know absolutely nothing about politics.

So why should a President necessarily need to know or even care about anything in evolution if its not a matter of national security? After all thats basically what the Executive Branch does, military, law enforcement. How does knowledge, understanding, or belief in evolution change you qualifications in that context.

[theCPE]

Well yeah...if the politician doesn't agree with science, obviously that's when people get concerned. Science, as a study, doesn't have a party or a "point of view", it either is or isn't.

 

You misunderstood. People concerned with gore's scientific abilities or knowledge are most likely people that disagree with his stances on GW.

 

Meaning....

 

When a politicians policies are contrary to what you believe, then you question their logic, economic understanding, or science knowledge.

 

BTW there are plenty of partisan scientists:)

[Sisyphus]

After all thats basically what the Executive Branch does, military, law enforcement. How does knowledge, understanding, or belief in evolution change you qualifications in that context.

 

The executive branch does much, much more than that. Most federal agencies are overseen by the executive branch. All legislation has to survive veto, and much of it is "proposed" by the executive. Hence any and all activities of government that involve science are affected by the President's scientific opinions.

[foodchain]

Well uh what about specialization? After all a botanist can discuss biology and perform their job easily and know absolutely nothing about politics.

So why should a President necessarily need to know or even care about anything in evolution if its not a matter of national security? After all thats basically what the Executive Branch does, military, law enforcement. How does knowledge, understanding, or belief in evolution change you qualifications in that context.

 

Its these same people that push the bible to be taught in public education and attempt to abolish the teaching of evolution or anything making the world past 2000 years old or whatever, so its like that ignorance they hold can come to harm a great deal, and bush jr. being a fine example of this.

[ParanoiA]

Well uh what about specialization? After all a botanist can discuss biology and perform their job easily and know absolutely nothing about politics.

So why should a President necessarily need to know or even care about anything in evolution if its not a matter of national security? After all thats basically what the Executive Branch does, military, law enforcement. How does knowledge, understanding, or belief in evolution change you qualifications in that context.

 

Because, to me, it's akin to the president believing marshmellows grow on trees. It's not that it's inherently bad, but rather indicative of a non-logical, or irrational person. I don't trust matters of national security with folks like that.

 

Evolution isn't something to believe in, anymore than choosing to believe the sun doesn't exist, so those who ignore that have lost deductive reasoning credibility with me.

[ParanoiA]

BTW there are plenty of partisan scientists:)

 

That's right...which is why I didn't refer to them.

[Haezed]

I wish the question had been posed to the democrats. It's not an enviable position, to be running for president, and to have to disagree with much of the country's belief system.

[Dr. Dalek]

Because, to me, it's akin to the president believing marshmellows grow on trees. It's not that it's inherently bad, but rather indicative of a non-logical, or irrational person. I don't trust matters of national security with folks like that.

 

Evolution isn't something to believe in, anymore than choosing to believe the sun doesn't exist, so those who ignore that have lost deductive reasoning credibility with me.

 

I see your point, though I would rather like to judge an individual on there actions rather than their beliefs I agree that this could be indicative of a less than rational mind.

 

I wish the question had been posed to the democrats. It's not an enviable position, to be running for president, and to have to disagree with much of the country's belief system.

A Democrat would just say "I believe in evolution" just because he knows its what people want to hear. I know I'm gonna catch heat for saying this, but frankly I don't care.

[john5746]

I see your point, though I would rather like to judge an individual on there actions rather than their beliefs I agree that this could be indicative of a less than rational mind.

 

In this case, the candidates that raised their hands also were the most stringent pro-lifers, against stem cell research, supporting Schiavo ordeal, etc.

 

A Democrat would just say "I believe in evolution" just because he knows its what people want to hear. I know I'm gonna catch heat for saying this, but frankly I don't care.

 

I agree. A democrat who indicated he did not believe in evolution or global warming would be laughed out of the race. Given that even a minority in the Republican side said they did not believe, it is safe to assume the most candidates believe in evolution.

 

I think Dawkins said in regards to atheism that many intelligent, educated people were atheist, yet you can find none in politics. This means finding an honest, intelligent politician is almost nil.

[foodchain]

I see your point, though I would rather like to judge an individual on there actions rather than their beliefs I agree that this could be indicative of a less than rational mind.

 

 

A Democrat would just say "I believe in evolution" just because he knows its what people want to hear. I know I'm gonna catch heat for saying this, but frankly I don't care.

 

why would you catch heat for saying politicians are less then honest possibly? Politicians can say a whole array of things, then get elected and basically do whatever they want for the most part.

 

Some posters above have it right though, you might as well being saying I don’t believe in gravity, on that note though its not personal beliefs that bother me, its just the fact that for the past eight years republicans in general because of ties to say the evangelicals for instance in America have been using the government as a means to ruin evolution by basically restricting it in public education and of course these same people have been active in pushing 'ID'iot ideas in public education even though you cant get anything close to being scientific with such, but teach it as science anyways.

 

Believe anything you want, but using the government to make sure everyone believes creationism is another thing, science curriculum in public education teaches evolution because its accepted scientifically as real. I mean if you happen to follow the flat earth idea, should public education avoid producing anything contrary to such a notion?

[PhDP]

Given that even a minority in the Republican side said they did not believe, it is safe to assume the most candidates believe in evolution.

 

It's not that simple, Intelligent Designers believe in evolution in their own twisted way and I'm pretty sure that the most prominent IDist would have answered "yes" to the question, even though they're engaged in quite a battle with the scientific community.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the other candidates were, like Bush, supporting the "teach the controversy" strategy.

 

I really wonder how much time a major, supposedly credible party in the USA, can afford to waste so much time on abortions, gays, evolution and global warming.

[Pangloss]

Sorry, I edited the OP to reflect that McCain answer that he believes in evolution.

 

Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo These guys raised their hand indicating they did not believe in evolution.

 

I appreciate this info. I missed it in the media's rush to paint all Republicans with the same brush. This is clearly an important distinction between the candidates.

[Dr. Dalek]

It's not that simple, Intelligent Designers believe in evolution in their own twisted way and I'm pretty sure that the most prominent IDist would have answered "yes" to the question, even though they're engaged in quite a battle with the scientific community.

 

I don't really understand on what battle this ground lies.

I'm not really religious myself, but my understanding of ID is that religious people are approaching evolution basically the same as everything else scientific.

A scientist says "Ok this is how it is and this is how it happened" and the only modification the religious puts to it is "Yeah God meant to do that."

 

Its not scientific to make such assumptions because it is not falsifiable by current standards, but u can't really prove it wrong. So as long as the IDers don't put any crazy spins on the scientific theory other than that (which i don't know if any are) than it should not really be the topic of controversy. As long as they agree with what happened, just personally applying their faith too it and teaching it to their own children should they desire.

[Sisyphus]

ID is more than that, though. Lots of religious people strictly believe in evolution as the means God uses to create, but that's not the same as ID. ID supposes it is science, and something which can be proven, and, were it to become mainstream, would be quite harmful to the actual science, because it is basically a "God of the gaps."

 

For example, if some complicated, unrxplained biological structure is encountered, a real biologist will approach it as a rich source of study that could possibly revolutionize the way we understand broader issues. A IDer, on the other hand, will just take it as proof of God's direct interference, since "it couldn't possibly have happened otherwise," and move on. Basically, it prevents science from learning anything new! It only applies to evolutionary biology, it's true, but teaching that its method is science can only harm the other sciences.

[CDarwin]

It's certainly unsettling having scientifically-illiterate leaders, but when you get right down to it most of the battlegrounds in the 'evolution controversy' are in the courts and on the local level. The Federal government in general, and the President in particular, doesn't really have that much to do with it, at least directly.

 

You probably shouldn't judge a leader's thinking abilities too harshly based on Creationism either. Really, some of the smartest people I know are Creationists. It's pretty easy to get roped into it, you just need to misunderstand a few scientific principles or believe the wrong people. When you get right down to it evolution vs. Creationism is all about who you want to believe if you don't have the proper training. Do you believe the scientists that scare me and what they say or the Creationists/Jesus and what they say? Many choose the latter.

 

It's not that simple, Intelligent Designers believe in evolution in their own twisted way and I'm pretty sure that the most prominent IDist would have answered "yes" to the question, even though they're engaged in quite a battle with the scientific community.

 

McCain's an IDist, (or is the phrase IDiot? ), or at least he's come out in support of teaching it in schools. I'm sure many of the others are too.

[Pangloss]

There are a thousand ways a President with a firm belief in ID and an opposing position on evolution can cause drastic and damaging change on the country. He controls the entire government bureaucracy. Virtually every appointment at every single agency "serves at the pleasure of the President". That includes the Department of Education. He can also sign or veto any piece of legislation put before him, and plays a major role in the budget process. He also appoints federal judges and Supreme Court justices (subject to legislative approval), and those appointments are lifetime in length.

 

Or "she", of course.

[CDarwin]

There are a thousand ways a President with a firm belief in ID and an opposing position on evolution can cause drastic and damaging change on the country. He controls the entire government bureaucracy. Virtually every appointment at every single agency "serves at the pleasure of the President". That includes the Department of Education. He can also sign or veto any piece of legislation put before him, and plays a major role in the budget process. He also appoints federal judges and Supreme Court justices (subject to legislative approval), and those appointments are lifetime in length.

 

Or "she", of course.

 

A firm belief and the will. At least 2 of our last 4 presidents have been Creationists, that doesn't mean they did much more about it than pay a little lip service. The fact is, the States and the courts have had a historically more important role in evolution education. The Feds just don't care that much and few national politicians want to weigh into a controversy with actions when they could get just as much political capital with words.

 

That said, I must say that seeing those three names in support of Creationism made me instantly dislike all of those three candidates... I guess I'm arguing against myself as much as anyone.

[PhDP]

I'm not really religious myself, but my understanding of ID is that religious people are approaching evolution basically the same as everything else scientific.

 

IDists claim that complicated structures can't be explained with evolution, they also dismiss a large chunk of evidence from molecular biology.

 

McCain's an IDist, (or is the phrase IDiot? ), or at least he's come out in support of teaching it in schools. I'm sure many of the others are too.

 

It's ironic, McCain hasn't raised his hand, Huckabee did, still, on this issue I'm on Huckabee's side. Obviously, I would prefer a candidate that would chose science over pseudoscience. But I don't really care what the candidates believe, what matters is what they’re going to do with this belief. Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution, but he has no problem with evolution being taught in public schools, and he doesn’t support the teaching of creationism in science classes.

 

The fact is, the States and the courts have had a historically more important role in evolution education.

 

Yea, but judges are appointed by the president.

[Pangloss]

But I don't really care what the candidates believe, what matters is what they’re going to do with this belief. Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution, but he has no problem with evolution being taught in public schools, and he doesn’t support the teaching of creationism in science classes.

 

An excellent point.