Only one republican candidate for President believes in Evolution

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
Jon Huntsman has easily won the "liberals on Twitter" primary by announcing that he ... believes in evolution, a theory that is almost universally accepted by scientists and rejected primarily by people looking to preserve the myth that every word in the self-contradictory, partially incorrectly translated, and occasionally quite ridiculous ancient scriptures of the Jewish and Christian faiths is literally true.

It's only remarkable that a well-educated prominent political figure believes in a nearly century-old scientific consensus because many other members of the political elite don't. Huntsman's tweet was prompted by Rick Perry telling a child that he has his doubts about evolution.

"I hear your mom was asking about evolution," Perry said today. "That's a theory that is out there -- and it's got some gaps in it."

Perry then told the boy: "In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution. I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."

holy shit that would be political suicide in canada. that's like saying "2+2 = 4 OR 2+2= 5 YOU DECIDE"

http://www.salon.com/news/2012_elec.../war_room/2011/08/19/perry_huntsman_evolution
 
Romney the other Mormon, has also said he believes in evolution.
 
I know this is like a totally big thing because they're showing a bit of backbone and going against the grain but all I can hear when this kind of thing comes out is "person in position of power accepts widely proven facet of reality." Somehow I don't think people would be singing his praises if he'd said the same about gravity.

God put evolution into motion.

Man I'm really not trying to spark one of those debates, and sorry in advance if you're just being sarcastic or something, but I have a genuine question for anyone who subscribes to this version of events: at what point did we "evolve" a soul? Like, did primitive humans have the same privileged position in God's kingdom as modern humans, or is that a more recent thing? Would I see Neanderthals in heaven? I know this probably sounds preposterous but I have seriously thought about this and it baffles me to no end.
 
It's a terrible thing when the most appealing thing about a candidate is that they believe in evolution.
 
I think Huntsman sounds like quite a good candidate, he doesn't have a hope in hell of getting the republican nomination though.
 
Only one presidential candidate from a party that for practical purposes represents half of the political power of the country believes a scientific fact.

Good job America.
 
Man I'm really not trying to spark one of those debates, and sorry in advance if you're just being sarcastic or something, but I have a genuine question for anyone who subscribes to this version of events: at what point did we "evolve" a soul? Like, did primitive humans have the same privileged position in God's kingdom as modern humans, or is that a more recent thing? Would I see Neanderthals in heaven? I know this probably sounds preposterous but I have seriously thought about this and it baffles me to no end.
I dont know. I just know I have a soul and there is a God, and that the happenings around us are guided by a higher power, including science. Just try to do in general more good things and few bad.

And I dont think these candidates' views on evolution are a huge indicator of their ability to be the administrator of the executive branch of government. Some of our greatest leaders throughout history from countries all over the globe didn't believe or don't believe in evolution, and it didn't suddenly make them terrible leaders solely for that fact.
 
The nice thing about science is that it's real whether you believe in it or not.
 
I dont know. I just know I have a soul and there is a God, and that the happenings around us are guided by a higher power, including science. Just try to do in general more good things and few bad.

And I dont think these candidates' views on evolution are a huge indicator of their ability to be the administrator of the executive branch of government. Some of our greatest leaders throughout history from countries all over the globe didn't believe or don't believe in evolution, and it didn't suddenly make them terrible leaders solely for that fact.

That person also needs to make decisions on such things as scientific funding. I don't trust a person to make valid decisions on that matter when they have demonstrated that they don't understand science. At the very least it damages their credibility, how can you trust someone to make rational decisions if they are willfully ignorant of one of the largest pillars in science and the foundation of modern biology?
 
And I dont think these candidates' views on evolution are a huge indicator of their ability to be the administrator of the executive branch of government. Some of our greatest leaders throughout history from countries all over the globe didn't believe or don't believe in evolution, and it didn't suddenly make them terrible leaders solely for that fact.

Sure it does. Nobody who puts ignorance and blind faith on a pedestal over rationality and the scientific method should be in a position of political power.
Who wants a US President eager to usher in the Rapture through nuclear Armageddon?
 
The thing about faith is that it only exists if at least one person still believes.
The same goes for science. Science didn't exist 10,000 years ago, because no one was practising it. The scientific method is very much a human invention and is in no way independent from us, any more than religion is. I am obviously of the belief that scientific explanations are of more merit than religious ones because that have a stronger basis in the empirical world, but the approach still man-made. There is no intrinsic reason why empirical observations should be higher regarded than, say, divine revelations.
 
There is no intrinsic reason why empirical observations should be higher regarded than, say, divine revelations.

Except for the fact that most empirical observations are objective. They can be confirmed by others observing the same thing. The way in which we describe natural phenomenons might be man made but the phenomenons themselves aren't. Divine revelations on the other hand are subjective because they are only observed by one person.
 
Don't let yourself believe that any given candidate won't simply jump on the bandwagon for neocon support. I'm sure most of them 'believe' in evolution, but you've got the get the trailerpark folk to the ballot boxes.
 
Don't let yourself believe that any given candidate won't simply jump on the bandwagon for neocon support. I'm sure most of them 'believe' in evolution, but you've got the get the trailerpark folk to the ballot boxes.


Wow, just wow. I knew elitism was rampant on these forums but this post takes the cake. Maybe you should take a trip outside of your sheltered little bubble once in a while.

That person also needs to make decisions on such things as scientific funding. I don't trust a person to make valid decisions on that matter when they have demonstrated that they don't understand science. At the very least it damages their credibility, how can you trust someone to make rational decisions if they are willfully ignorant of one of the largest pillars in science and the foundation of modern biology?
Then in your case it doesn't boil down to evolution, it boils down to only supporting an atheist for President. The concept of God isn't supported by most modern scientific leadership. Don't interpret this post as me agreeing with them, but I just had to point that out. There is a difference between not understanding and disagreeing with something.
 
How does believing in God enter into whether or not he'd give a scientific program funding?
 
I never wished ill on the trailer park folk, I just claimed it's a more likely demographic to desire a candidate who denies evolution. Jeez!
 
Then in your case it doesn't boil down to evolution, it boils down to only supporting an atheist for President. The concept of God isn't supported by most modern scientific leadership. Don't interpret this post as me agreeing with them, but I just had to point that out. There is a difference between not understanding and disagreeing with something.

It's not so much what they don't believe (though I don't like using the word 'belief' with regards to evolution/other science; it implies it's a matter of faith, but okay I shall for now) it's what they do believe. If you don't believe in evolution, then what do you believe? I can live with a candidate saying that they believe God guided/started evolution, even though it doesn't make sense, because it's still compatible with reality as we know it, just with some magical thinking bolted on. But not believing in evolution almost automatically implies not believing in an old Earth/universe. I'm not aware of any world views where the Earth and life is old but where they went unchanged for all that time. And if you don't believe in an old Earth, it means you either dismiss or are ignorant of all of modern geology, physics, astronomy, biology, archeology, paleontology and even anthropology.
 
I never wished ill on the trailer park folk, I just claimed it's a more likely demographic to desire a candidate who denies evolution. Jeez!
It's nothing about wishing ill. It's the elitist attitude that shows through. Don't worry, there's not really anything you can specifically do to avoid showing it if it's inherent in your real personality.
 
Who the hell cares? We've got a global economy on the verge of another recession, a war costing us billions that's about to have lasted 10 years, unemployment, and countless other issues to focus on besides an almost completely moot point when it comes to running a country.
 
The things people should be worrying about are questions like "Can this man solve the financial crisis" or "Can we trust the promises this man is making". America has bigger problems right now than whether or not its presidential candidates believe in evolution/creationism.
 
Yeah it's always best to choose a leader based on a single issue.
 
I was only listing a couple of examples, my point was that America has bigger problems right now.
 
I don't think anyone actually believes that a politician denying evolution will result directly in their unsuitability as a candidate. The point is that it's a symptom of a willingness to utterly deny the balance of evidence in favour of their own faith - and for those who believe that evidence-based policy is the way forward this seems a very dangerous tendency.
 
I don't think anyone actually believes that a politician denying evolution will result directly in their unsuitability as a candidate. The point is that it's a symptom of a willingness to utterly deny the balance of evidence in favour of their own faith - and for those who believe that evidence-based policy is the way forward this seems a very dangerous tendency.

beliefs can creep in to their policies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/18/rumsfeld-gq-iraq-bible-quotes-bush
http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/p/Republican_ESCR.htm

abortion, same sex marriage, creationism in schools; policies shaped by religious belief
 
Well, yeah, good point. And Bush supposedly compared Saddam Hussein to "Gog and Magog" (extremely obscure biblical figures) in a diplomatic meeting with the bemused French head of state. But once again, the lack of belief in evolution is kind of a symptom: it signals or indicates extremely strong and even fundamentalist religious beliefs.
 
you're too kind sulkdodds; I'd have said it's a clear indication that they're batshit insane
 
It's nothing about wishing ill. It's the elitist attitude that shows through. Don't worry, there's not really anything you can specifically do to avoid showing it if it's inherent in your real personality.

The personality of you bagging my groceries?

emot-v.gif


What you're referencing is called apathy

Apathy? I believe you were attempting to argue that if Libyan suffering equated to elevating the quality of life in the U.S. you'd take the firm stance of giving no shits. You really do epitomize the double standard, haha.

Apathy proposes no agenda, displays no principal on it's own.
 
Apathy? I believe you were attempting to argue that if Libyan suffering equated to elevating the quality of life in the U.S. you'd take the firm stance of giving no shits. You really do epitomize the double standard, haha.
Let me clear it up: I'd give no shits even if the despot had a neutral effect on the US. I'd start giving shits when he took a hostile stance to or caused negative effects in the US. I can understand where the confusion came in now- you guys thought that I only wouldn't care if he was beneficial to us.

I should have clarified that 'I only WOULD care if he was causing us physical or economic harm.'

Any when I say care I mean support taking economic/military action in the area. Actually doing something. In my book saying "Oh yea I think hes terrible but we shouldnt deploy there" is the same as not caring. Talking about it but not being about it = apathy, same thing. Its like supporting a candidate then not voting.
 
Back
Top