Some Republican Presidential Candidates Do Not Believe in Evolution

[onedomino]

During the recent Republican Presidential Debate the question was asked, “Who doesn’t believe in Evolution?” Three of the candidates actually raised their hands: Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo. The capacity to deny the overwhelming evidence that supports bio-chemical evolution spotlights their capacity for self-delusion. Moreover, it shows their ability to disregard a preponderance evidence in favor of a religious belief. In my opinion, no one with those characteristics should be President.

 

[Diuretic]

Agreed. Put me down as "stunned".

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Anyone who says that they don't believe in evolution doesn't fully understand it. It's been my experience that a good majority of those who don't believe in evolution are under the false assumption that evolution only means humans evolved from monkeys. Personally, I think someone saying that they don't believe in evolution is just as ignorant as saying that AIDs can be transmitted through tears and sweat.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

During the recent Republican Presidential Debate the question was asked, “Who doesn’t believe in Evolution?” Three of the candidates actually raised their hands: Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo. The capacity to deny the overwhelming evidence that supports bio-chemical evolution spotlights their capacity for self-delusion. Moreover, it shows their ability to disregard a preponderance evidence in favor of a religious belief. In my opinion, no one with those characteristics should be President.

well evolution is a theory not a fact, let's not act like evoultion is not debatable, but i don't believe "god" made us

 

[Diuretic]

well evolution is a theory not a fact, let's not act like evoultion is not debatable, but i don't believe "god" made us

Isn't it the case in science that until a new theory comes along which shoves the other one out of the way that the prevailing theory, while it's accepted, is still tested and tested? So it must be debatable.

I mean the very fact that science accepts (for the moment) the ideas of Darwin rather than Lamarck surely means that Darwin's ideas were once tested and that they are continually tested. But also, while Darwin is preferred over Lamarck, Lamarck did contribute to human understanding of evolution or we wouldn't remember him.

I would think there are plenty of scientists who would dearly love to prove Darwin wrong, at least in some part, so that they could see their own findings tentatively accepted.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have to wonder what it matters?

I dont particularly care the theory of evolution. leaves alot of questions for me. but i guess because i dont blindly accept it as the unalterable truth that makes me deluded?

I think its healthy to question, explore and learn. Thats what science is all about.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If specific questions were not asked and answered by these individuals one can not assume they mean a blanket denial of evolution.

I believe in the general theory of Evolution, EXCEPT I do NOT believe man developed from apes or an "ape like creature". So in a general question I would answer based on what I thought was the main thrust of the questioner.

I do agree these three should have been more careful how they answered this loaded question, if all they did is indicate a disbelief to such a generic question I would suspect they thought they would be able to go into detail on the answer.

The Theory of Evolution is not proven in any meaningful way. It involves a myriad of basic assumptions that are still unproven or in some cases unprovable. Having said that, the wealth of current research does seem to be pretty specific on evolution WITHIN a species. Thus to dismiss the theory out of hand is not a wise choice.

Evolution and Religion are not incompatable, one can believe in both easily.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I have to wonder what it matters?

I dont particularly care the theory of evolution. leaves alot of questions for me. but i guess because i dont blindly accept it as the unalterable truth that makes me deluded?

I don't know about you, but to me whether a Presidential candidate believes in the theory of evolution is more revealing than whether he supports abortion or not. But that's just me.

I think its healthy to question, explore and learn. Thats what science is all about.

It's why I support the notion of intelligent design to be objectively taught and scrutinized in high school biology.

 

[onedomino]

I have to wonder what it matters?

I dont particularly care the theory of evolution. leaves alot of questions for me. but i guess because i dont blindly accept it as the unalterable truth that makes me deluded?

I think its healthy to question, explore and learn. Thats what science is all about.

I explained why it matters to me in the post that started this thread.

You may not care for the theory, but the preponderance of evidence supporting bio-chemical evolution on Earth is overwhelming. Almost every objective person will acknowledge that. Most people who deny the reality of evolution do so on the basis that it seems to contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible. Clearly, acceptance of the theory of evolution does not in any way contradict belief in the existence of God. There are other examples that make irrational a literal interpretation of the Bible. For example, one may not care for the theory that the Universe is older than what is indicated in the Bible, but the mass of evidence overwhelms such belief. The reality is different than what is suggested by the Book. Here is what Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo disregard: some things are true whether one believes in them or not.

 

[onedomino]

If specific questions were not asked and answered by these individuals one can not assume they mean a blanket denial of evolution.

That may well be true. However, the questioner indicated that it was a "show of hands" question and asked everyone at the same time. The moment passed so quickly, and the camera angle was so poor, that it was difficult to know which three had raised their hands. It was only by reading about the debate later that I learned it was Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo. I must say, that given what I know about the other positions and beliefs of these men, I am not surprised that they were the three that denied belief in Evolution.

My favorite candidate in the debate was Duncan Hunter, though almost no one else shares that view. This past weekend, I listened to a speech given by Fred Thompson at the Lincoln Club in Orange County, CA. I was impressed, but as one might expect at this stage, the speech was short on specifics.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unfortunately, I read that Fred Thompson has Cancer? If true it is unlikely he will run for president.

As for evidence.... There IS overwhelming evidence that within a species evolution occurs and works as advertised. I would say that that small piece is all but proven. The problem is there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory on the emergence of totally different species from an original species. That part is all assumptions.

Until the science can provide hard evidence that such occurs that part is simply wishful thinking.

And I agree, If one believes in God, nothing about any part of the evolution theory destroys that belief. After all, couldn't an all powerful being have just used the methods science is identifying? And specifically since there is no compelling evidence of one species evolving into a totally different species the question of how "christians " belief man was made is not a problem.

A question I always ask is as follows.... When Cain slew Able and was cast out he went and joined with other "people" where did they come from?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Unfortunately, I read that Fred Thompson has Cancer? If true it is unlikely he will run for president.

You got a link to that?




Haha, just kidding. I know you can't post one yet.

Here's a link to the story. He says he'll run despite.
http://news.aol.com/topnews/article...-has-cancer/20070411110609990001?ecid=RSS0001

 

[Annie]

Unfortunately, I read that Fred Thompson has Cancer? If true it is unlikely he will run for president.

As for evidence.... There IS overwhelming evidence that within a species evolution occurs and works as advertised. I would say that that small piece is all but proven. The problem is there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory on the emergence of totally different species from an original species. That part is all assumptions.

Until the science can provide hard evidence that such occurs that part is simply wishful thinking.

And I agree, If one believes in God, nothing about any part of the evolution theory destroys that belief. After all, couldn't an all powerful being have just used the methods science is identifying? And specifically since there is no compelling evidence of one species evolving into a totally different species the question of how "christians " belief man was made is not a problem.

A question I always ask is as follows.... When Cain slew Able and was cast out he went and joined with other "people" where did they come from?

Maybe not:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/373011,CST-NWS-thomp06.article

...Thompson's online activity helps create a buzz about him as he weighs a White House campaign, said GOP strategist David Winston.

"People hear about an interesting idea, and it just spreads; people tell other people,'' Winston said.

In polls, Thompson does well for someone who isn't running, vying with candidate Mitt Romney and potential candidate Newt Gingrich for third in recent surveys. Another indication he is serious about running is his public admission last month that he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer. Thompson said he is in remission.

So what's he talking about online? He has opined about tax cuts, the Virginia Tech shootings, even the NFL draft: "Why do these teams keep drafting players with character defects you can see at 100 yards in the dark with your back turned?''

AP

 

[onedomino]

Unfortunately, I read that Fred Thompson has Cancer? If true it is unlikely he will run for president.

I have read that Fred Thompson was diagnosed with "indolent lymphoma" in 2004. His case is in remission and may not affect his normal life span. 63,000 Americans per year are diagnosed with the cancer that Thompson has. Increasingly, cancer can be seen as a chronic managable disease. It does not have to be a death sentence. Unfortunately, many Americans, for many different reasons, do not have adequate access to health care. Thus cancer often causes unnecessary death. At any rate, if Fred Thompson was in long-term remission (which he seems to be), and I agreed with his political views, then I would vote for him.

 

[Hamiltonian]

well evolution is a theory not a fact, let's not act like evoultion is not debatable, but i don't believe "god" made us

Everything based on induction is debatable. Even if evolution was considered a fact, it would be debatable. Only a priori concepts are clearly true, and people still try to debate those.

 

[Vintij]

Those three that raised there hand are not going to be relevant, they dug there own grave by disregarding science.

Even if the question was not clear about biological evolution or evolution by natural selection. The main point of evolution is the passing of genes/traits of DNA from one generation to another through the parents. This is proven biological evolution that they do not believe in. Therefore nobody will vote for another president in denial.

They should have asked, "do you believe in Evolution by natural selection?" Which means that in addition to the genes passed over, evolution also takes place over a long period of time through adaptation of the surrounding habitat. Meaning that frogs dont have webbed feet because there parents gave them webbed feet. They have it because of the millions of years of adapting to the water and land. Sort of like, a possom playing dead. Adaptation exists, and so does Biological Evolution, but Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory that maybe these candidates did not believe in.

Either way, these candidates basically had the ignorance to deny scientific evidence that clearly proves Biological Evolution. None of them will be president, thats for sure.

 

[Mr.Conley]

well evolution is a theory not a fact, let's not act like evoultion is not debatable, but i don't believe "god" made us

"Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.) "
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

 

[Dirt McGirt]

They should have asked, "do you believe in Evolution by natural selection?" Which means that in addition to the genes passed over, evolution also takes place over a long period of time through adaptation of the surrounding habitat. Meaning that frogs dont have webbed feet because there parents gave them webbed feet. They have it because of the millions of years of adapting to the water and land. Sort of like, a possom playing dead. Adaptation exists, and so does Biological Evolution, but Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory that maybe these candidates did not believe in.

Huh? Actually, frogs that have webbed feet because it was passed on to them is exactly what natural selection says. Natural selection states that if there were frogs with webbed feet and frogs without webbed feet, that frogs with webbed feet would survive around water longer because their webbed feet allows them to escape predators faster than frogs without webbed feet. Surviving predators allows frogs with webbed feet to pass their genes on at a higher rate than frogs without webbed feet because the frogs without webbed feet would be eaten by predators. Over time the population of the frogs without webbed feet around water would die out. That's natural selection in a nutshell.

 

[Vintij]

Yes thats natural selection, but I said "evolution by natural selection" Which is far more complex than natural selection itself, which is what you just described. But Evolution by natural selections suggests that even before frogs had webbed feet, they most likely had no feet at all. You dont get feet from natural selection, you get feet through evolution. And when you combine the two, you get Feet through evolution AND the ability to swim and jump, through natural selection.

So remember theres, "Natural selection", and theres "Evolution by natural selection".

 

[jillian]

I have to wonder what it matters?

I dont particularly care the theory of evolution. leaves alot of questions for me. but i guess because i dont blindly accept it as the unalterable truth that makes me deluded?

I think its healthy to question, explore and learn. Thats what science is all about.

Not believing in evolution has nothing to do with science. It indicates absolutely no ability to question, explore and learn. And it matters because anyone who doesn't believe in evolution isn't capable of putting science before religion and has no business being President.