Yahoo - Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

[twa]

Sources which promote foolishness will call you close minded if you fail to accept it... Just something to keep in mind.

Dude, I argue with the AGW folk

[Larry]

Let's try to keep the offensive tone down, TB.

Can we still criticize the defense?

[Jumbo]

Dude, I argue with the AGW folk

Hell, I have no doubt when you're offline that you wake mrs. twa up arguing with yourself. You probably even switch chairs during it.

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 06:35 PM ----------

Can we still criticize the defense?

I really love TB. I don't have the heart to tell him that Haslett is proof there is no such thing as 'Intelligent Design" where humans are concerned.

[Larry]

I really love TB. I don't have the heart to tell him that Haslett is proof there is no such thing as 'Intelligent Design" where humans are concerned.

Been showing Mom Reba, on DVD, for some time now. One of the lines that I've probably heard 50 times is

"God has a great sense of humor. Look at ostriches."

[Special K]

Interesting topic.

I am a Christian and do believe in intelligent design (I know, I'm stupid ) in addition to many aspects of evolution. That being said, personally, I think Republicans are doing a major disservice to their party by adhering so strictly to evangelistic ideas. Tying themselves to these ideals isolates a significant segments of the population and the GOP is going to have a heck of a hard time scraping up additional votes to fill the gap of the ones they've alienated.

While I believe in ID, I do not think it should be taught in science classes because it fails to meet the very definition of science. Politicians should not be pushing this subject and trying to force ID into cirriculum. That being said, I am totally comfortable with the teaching of ID in religion or philosophy classes, just not in science-based courses.

As for voting for a candidate based on religious beliefs, I tend to evaluate that on a case by case basis. If someone is just bat**** crazy, over-the-top religious, it's pretty easy for me not to vote for that person. Candidates who hold more moderate religious views, I have a much easier time voting for if they are not talking about it influencing their policy-making. It's a very gray area for me as I believe decisions made when developing policy regarding the environment (and other areas steeped in scientific foundation) should be based solely on scientific fact.

[Jumbo]

K, how would you feel about someone seeming ok enough as a candidate to you in most ways, but was an agnostic or atheist.

Further, what if a Buddhist, orr a follower of Shintoism.

I am most interested in reactions to the first identification, but I mention the others as I think most people have different levels of resistance to different degrees of departure (as they perceive such) from their own beliefs.

[Arasmus]

Back to the political side of the matter, while endorsing creationism/ID may be regarded as risky even for a GOPer, I sure think identifying oneself as an agnostic/atheist is much riskier for any person of any party, but I wonder if it's getting less or moreso.

We've "allowed" a Catholic to win, and a Mormon to compete, and a Muslim's already won (twice now ) so I wonder.

Can a conservative just add that open endorsement of C/ID and make it--at least get as far as a POTUS nomination).

I think so.

But not an agnostic/atheist yet.

I'm a bad, bad person. I would love to see an atheist candidate make it the general election just for the spectacle of the thing. Although, in the long run I suppose it might be good for the country to have a good knock down, drag out fight over religion and its place in politics. But in the meantime, mmmmm, spectacle.

[Special K]

K, how would you feel about someone seeming ok enough as a candidate to you in most ways, but was an agnostic or atheist.

Further, what if a Buddhist, orr a follower of Shintoism.

I am most interested in reactions to the first identification, but I mention the others as I think most people have different levels of resistance to different degrees of departure (as they perceive such) from their own beliefs.

Actually, I really would have no problem voting for an agnostic, atheist or buddhist...I draw the line at satanist though .

If I liked the candidate and agreed with his/her political stances and platform, I would definitely vote for them. Growing up in a fairly (ok VERY) conservative Christian family, as a child, I was taught to be afraid of atheists, agnostics, etc. e.g. they were bad people or not normal. It wasn't blatant bashing of those who didn't believe in Christianity, but there was a discernable seperation between "us" (Christians) and "them" (non-Christians).

As I matured and ventured out on my own, away from heavy religious influence, I was able to interact with people of different beliefs. These interactions enabled a lot of walls between "me" and "them" tto be broken down. I have had the pleasure of experiencing various relationships with extremely intelligent and responsible people who do not believe as I do. Ultimately, their religious or non-religious view didn't effect our friendship and there was a LOT we had in common.

So, as long as the individual doesn't interject his/her beliefs into policy (and this goes both ways, with religious and non-religious believers), I don't have a problem voting for them if I think they would make a capable POTUS.

For the record, I think my parents might kick my ass if they read this. My dad especially seems to have a difficult time understanding my "liberalness"...which I find pretty commical because I'm not a liberal at all, I consider myself pretty moderate.

[twa]

What say ye....GOP?

I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know…


http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._universe.html

[Skins24]

So....someone doesn't answer a question because he doesn't know the answer....wow, he must not believe in evolution...because that's what you get when you read the story, right?

I've read all 6 pages so far and I'm still not quite sure how this is even remotely a story. What exactly did he say wrong?
Science doesn't even know how old the earth is. We have good guesstimates, but we'll never know.

(until, of course, time travel is invented/discovered)



Also...who cares???
I know people on here are trying to make it seem that a president's or potential president's personal beliefs in trivial matters like this actually matter. But...really? Examples??

[elkabong82]

"Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries."

I don't know how some of you can defend that statement. The science on the age of our planet is clear. The evidence is staggering. Yet some ignore it because of anecdotal evidence in ancient text. Seriously, I don't want someone as POTUS who avoids answering a question with a proven answer solely because they don't want to upset some of their voting base, especially not when it has to do with science. Our nation is lagging in science by global education comparisons, we don't need to be taking steps backward.

Rubio is no scientist so he can't say how old the Earth is, yet he'll defend his party's stance on when life begins.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...enying-rights/

So basically, it not that Rubio isn't a scientist, it's just that he'd rather dodge the question about basic scientific fact just to avoid offending party members.

So, what does that say about the party when basic scientific fact is ignored and leaders are forced into either ignoring science also or side-stepping the issue?

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 11:57 PM ----------

Science doesn't even know how old the earth is. We have good guesstimates, but we'll never know.

(until, of course, time travel is invented/discovered)



Also...who cares???
I know people on here are trying to make it seem that a president's or potential president's personal beliefs in trivial matters like this actually matter. But...really? Examples??

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=of...w=1067&bih=515

4.54 billion years old based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples with a 1% margin of error.

Certainly much older than the Creationist view says, and certainly it took longer than 7 days to be form.

People care because knowledge of basic scientific fact is important and a potential POTUS candidate avoiding that due to religious ideology is both ridiculous and scary. Our nation is slipping in science education among the global community and coddling religious idealists who ignore science is only damaging that. People care who don't want the U.S. to continue falling behind because people can't adapt their religious ideology to fact.

If there was truly a separation of church and state in Rubio's mind then he would be able to give a straight answer of "billions of years old." Instead he caved and gave a cop out, non-committal answer because a large chunk of his voter base refuses to accept fact. Instead of caving he should be leading them into a factual understanding. Ignoring fact for ideology is a dangerous proposition and I know I wouldn't want someone like that as a leader.

[Special K]

People care because knowledge of basic scientific fact is important and a potential POTUS candidate avoiding that due to religious ideology is both ridiculous and scary. Our nation is slipping in science education among the global community and coddling religious idealists who ignore science is only damaging that. People care who don't want the U.S. to continue falling behind because people can't adapt their religious ideology to fact.

If there was truly a separation of church and state in Rubio's mind then he would be able to give a straight answer of "billions of years old." Instead he caved and gave a cop out, non-committal answer because a large chunk of his voter base refuses to accept fact. Instead of caving he should be leading them into a factual understanding. Ignoring fact for ideology is a dangerous proposition and I know I wouldn't want someone like that as a leader.

What about a person who just believes in God? Since existence of God cannot be scientifically proven, are people who believe in that "ancient text" ridiculous and unbalanced as well and not capable of being POTUS? ust trying to figure out where you draw the line between faith and fact...

[No Excuses]

What about a person who just believes in God? Since existence of God cannot be scientifically proven, are people who believe in that "ancient text" ridiculous and unbalanced as well and not capable of being POTUS? ust trying to figure out where you draw the line between faith and fact...

An acceptance of science doesn't have to come at the cost of rejection of faith.

Why does Rubio have to do mental gymnastics to answer one of the simplest questions of science? If he is elected POTUS can we trust him with much serious issues like nuclear physics, climate change, stem cell research etc. when he can't answer something so simple?

Calling him out on this is not an attack on faith. It's an attack on stupidity which should not be masked by "faith".

[twa]

Calling him out on this is not an attack on faith. It's an attack on stupidity which should not be masked by "faith".

have you called out O on basically the same answer?

it seems to be just a issue if you are GOP

[No Excuses]

have you called out O on basically the same answer?

it seems to be just a issue if you are GOP

It's not the same answer but you can continue to believe that.