A group of leading scientists and academic leaders is calling for at least one presidential debate next year focusing on issues of science, technology, medicine and the environment.
It’s a great idea. Mike Huckabee, for instance, has said he doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution. How would that stand be reflected in public policy or research funding?
With a revolution under way in everything from renewable energy to stem cell research — and with some accusing the Bush administration of waging a “war on science†— it’s important for the candidates to let voters know where they stand on the complex scientific and ethical issues facing the nation.
See the group’s Web site at sciencedebate2008.com.
202 Comments
Which Republicans actually accept the fact of evolution? Romney probably doesn’t, Huckabee doesn’t, Ron Paul doesn’t, McCain doesn’t mind teaching creationism. It might be a hoot to get these guys to explain why people keep on getting colds, or bacterial resistance to anti-biotics.
Why stop with science?
Why not a presidential debate on math?
Because, of course, math doesn’t depend on a show of hands. Neither should science.
Not all than many years ago, a show of hands would have determined that the earth stands still and the sun revolves around us every day. It wouldn’t make it right.
Far from the rantings of creationists and their ilk, science constantly asks questions about evolution, the origin of species, the origins an qualities of life itself.
If you want answers, convert to a religion or vote for the candidate of your choice. Don’t mess with science. Science never has answers, only questions.
And evidence.
I recently read a history of the Manhattan Project. There were legitimate scientific questions posed at the time that wondered if an atomic bomb might incinerate the entire planet; that what happens in a chain reaction of a nuclear explosion would continue to burn all oxygen and atmosphere and life on earth. Other scientists thought differently and we know which scientists were proven correct.
Landing on the Moon was a magnificent test of scientific observations. No scientist was 100% certain the so-called “laws” of physics would prove true a couple of hundred thousand miles away from earth. But we now have a lot of evidence maybe Newton and Einstein and others have tripped over something like the truth.
Sniping at Darwin and subsequent disoveries doesn’t disprove the evidence science has accumulated. But science is the way to bet, because science always asks questions and never assumes it’s got all the answers.
The only purpose of a “presidential debate on science” would be to hear the candidates’ answers. That’s categorically *not* science.
I think the Republican candidates went to school in Colorado and got this sort of education:
http://www.filecabi.net/video/Darwin_Evolution.html
Well, MH, at least they would be forced to TALK about science. An assuming a genuine journalist was moderating (as opposed to the usual “You say the Earth is flat, he doesn’t–let’s get both sides!), some revealing questions might be asked.
That would be an improvement.
What was that Tom wrote on using religion to prevent someone from holding public office?
It appears that the Libs want to exactly that by any means.
Here it is:
“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
–Article VI, Constitution of the United States of America
Read it. Learn it. Respect it. Live it.
Posted by: Tom | December 29, 2007 at 01:29 AM
Let’s repeat that for those who don’t believe they are violating the Constitutional rights of people like Huckabee or Romney who profess their faith and run for public office.
“”No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”"
Appears to me that a religious test is being applied unconstitutionally by the MSM and Libs at ever opportunity.
Hypocrites.
How is asking the candidates their views on science a “religious test”?
Are you scared of what the answers may be?
Most debates are a waste of time and energy, unless you own a wind farm. The whole “political Process” is a real load of Manure, and lasts too long. I am already totally burned out on this round, and am sure there are many like me.
This is an EXCELLENT idea.
And the next time Fred Thompson or ANY Republican refuses to answer a simple yes or no question, the moderator should be able to cut his/their mike and tell them they are out and to leave the stage.
Apophis,
This is what Scholfield wrote:
“Mike Huckabee, for instance, has said he doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution. How would that stand be reflected in public policy or research funding?”
If that’s not a test of religion, I don’t know what is. It’s a back door way of using a person’s faith to exclude them from running for office.
“Mike Huckabee, for instance, has said he doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution. How would that stand be reflected in public policy or research funding?”
That sounds to me more like does Huchabee back SCIENCE. I don’t read any words anywhere near RELIGION in that paragraph.
Oh, I don’t think Huckabee is being “excluded from running for office”. I think he IS a declared candidate.
Now, the voters will decide if they want to back a candidate who doesn’t back real SCIENCE.
That sounds to me more like does Huchabee back SCIENCE. I don’t read any words anywhere near RELIGION in that paragraph.
Posted by: Apophis | December 29, 2007 at 06:39 AM
Yeah, uh huh.
Like I said, it’s a back door method of using one’s religion to prevent them from public office.
Belief or non-belief in Darwinism is irrelevant to the office of the President of the United States.
Now if they have a specific question on a specific method that might be used and that method is eligible for funding by Congress, then I have no objection.
Embryonic Stem cell would be a fair question to a candidate.
However, Darwinism is totally irrelevant in using it as a broad stroke to exclude candidates seeking office.
The motive and method goes to seeking what someone’s faith or religion is.
However, Darwinism is totally irrelevant in using it as a broad stroke to exclude candidates seeking office.
Posted by: Kansas | December 29, 2007 at 06:45 AM
You really must have been on an all night drunk troll-boy.No candidate has has been excluded. In fact your use of the word “candidate” confirms none have been excluded!
The Presidential candidates on both sides seem (well except for Thompson) to accept the reality of human caused global warming and are at least willing to pay lip service to addressing it.
On this most important of issues, perhaps we should have a dedicated debate.
You really must have been on an all night drunk troll-boy.No candidate has has been excluded. In fact your use of the word “candidate” confirms none have been excluded!
Posted by: Apophis | December 29, 2007 at 06:52 AM
What a despicable debate method Apophis. I don’t drink or do drugs or smoke.
The point is, if the debate questioners want to ask a scientific question that falls under the purse powers of Congress, then that is fair.
A broadly stroked question that uses Darwinism as a test on what one believes in, is totally irrelevant.
Perhaps we need to question the Senate majority leader who is a Democrat and a Mormon if he is capable of making any decision on a vote for anything scientific based on Darwinism or his particular faith.
The debates are nothing more then a single ring circus where the candidates show off their juggling abilities and slide of hand tricks. mindless flash to distract the masses away from what is reality. Hard questions and hard answers are not fruitful in an election year as they do not appeal to the masses. Simply look at the media, are the candidates being called on serious issues or is there more air time on meaningless topics like hair, girlfriends and where it is a cross in the background or simply a bookshelf? No I do not see any real serious debates, the majority would not watch it and might not want to hear the answers. It is easier to vote for someone we make our minds up based on fluff and catch phrases.
You are in agreement with Senator Thompson then dog.
Thompson has said he deplores debate by sound byte. It doesn’t give the candidate the opportunity respond to a question fully or challenge the questioner when they put in a “loaded” question that is ideologically biased.
I am SO SORRY that you don’t like me troll-boy; the feeling is mutual.
Isn’t it close enough to the end of the year for you to dissapear permanently, as promised?
The candidates were asked for a show of hands as to whether they thought global warming was a problem.
Now this is a well accepted technique in debate when several individuals are involved. A simple indication yes or no. The former Senator apparently thought he was above it AND the rest of the candidates who had no problem with it.
Oh and I should add that any poll shows otherwise.
Well Fred does have the day job as a bad actor to go back to.
The candidates were asked for a show of hands as to whether they thought global warming was a problem.
Now this is a well accepted technique in debate when several individuals are involved. A simple indication yes or no. The former Senator apparently thought he was above it AND the rest of the candidates who had no problem with it.
Posted by: J R | December 29, 2007 at 07:08 AM
That’s because it was a stupid question.
Ask the panel if snow is a problem.
Depending on one’s perspective if you come from a district that needs snow for skiing and other winter sports, then there answer might not be a problem.
If you come from a state where snow is infrequent and causes many traffic accident when it happens, then snow is a problem.
The question makes two convenient categories out of people on the GW issue – Acceptance or in the words of GW alarmists – Deniers.
There is a third alternate answer to the question.
That is, we just don’t know enough about the Climate Science to make a determination.
Did you ever notice that the candidates for US president are never from a technical or scientific background? I wonder why that is?
Did you ever notice that the candidates for US president are never from a technical or scientific background? I wonder why that is?
Roland, with the exception of Ron Paul, he is a Physician.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s view point on a lot of things, but he does have a scientific/medical background.
“However, Darwinism is totally irrelevant in using it as a broad stroke to exclude candidates seeking office.”
Posted by kansas.
I seriously doubt that statement, and here’s why:There is only one other belief associated with mans’ place on this planet, other than a few religions, such as some Indian tribes, and that belief is creationism. That belief is strictly a faith-based belief. There is no evidence to support that “theory”, other than a few references in the bible (which used parables as a teaching tool. I mean, come on; seven days? What constituted a day in God’s mind? Who among the creationist believers is arrogant enough to know how God’s clock works? A universe “day” on the earth’s rotation around the milky way is over 100 million years. Who’s to say that isn’t the calander God used?).
Ergo, anything done by a president to support his belief is done so using the bible as a reference point. THAT is something the Constitution forbids. Our government is NOT based on the bible, but on the rule of law. That law being set up and in accordance with the Constitution and the bill of rights.
Our founding fathers knew what faith based governments led to (think middle ages), and knew our country would not stand under such rule, so they wrote the Constitution to severely limit religion in government.
Once I know any candidates belief, I have a starting point to see if they will inject their belief into their leadership. I think Hukklebuns would, based on his remarks so far. If I were republican, I would not vote for him, with his religious beliefs being just one of the reasons.
J M Walker,
Our country was founded before Darwinism.
The topic is irrelevant and as I said would be used to paint a religious face on each candidate.
If one is to adhere to the principles of what the founding fathers agreed on what is necessary to be qualified for the office of President, then Darwinism, which did not exist in the 18th century is irrelevant.
It’s gonna be a lot less funny on WE Blog once “Kansas” leaves us. His latest:
“If one is to adhere to the principles of what the founding fathers agreed on what is necessary to be qualified for the office of President, then Darwinism, which did not exist in the 18th century is irrelevant.”
What an absurdity.
Automatic weapons did not exist in the 18th Century. Wiretaps didn’t exist in the 18th Century. Corporations didn’t exist in the 18th Century.
According to “Kansas,” they’re all irrelevant to government.
The topic is irrelevant and as I said would be used to paint a religious face on each candidate.
Posted by: Kansas | December 29, 2007 at 08:16 AM
Oh, so now the troll-boy changes from “excluding a candidate from office” to “paint a religious face on each candidate”.
If one strawman won’t make it from the reichwing, just construct another.
Automatic weapons did not exist in the 18th Century. Wiretaps didn’t exist in the 18th Century. Corporations didn’t exist in the 18th Century.
According to “Kansas,” they’re all irrelevant to government.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | December 29, 2007 at 08:35 AM
Space travel didn’t exist either, but it is something that is funded.
Darwinism is not a funded item by Congress, it’s a scientific philosophy.
If the debate wants to include stem cell research, abortion, space travel, highway system or other things funded by Congress and signed into law by the President, then go for it.
There is no Darwin Law up for a vote in Congress or on the table of any President to be signed. It is an irrelevant topic to be discussed.
That’s why we have courts if you want to argue an issue. Using soundbytes to determine philosophy can’t be done in 1, 5 or even 60 minutes of ideological driven discussion.
Darwinism is irrelevant when it comes to who is qualified to be President.
What if the candidate believed in re-incarnation? It doesn’t matter does it – the candidate is not running to be the head of the Darwin society, he/she is running to be the President of the United States.
Sorry MonkeyHock, your fur is all soggy on this matter.
How in the world does asking a canidate about thier views on science equal a religous test? It does not exclude anyone. I would not bar a canidate the chance to run.
MH,Yep, neither did gravity, so I guess that’s irrelevant as well. Darn, I hate it when people just up and streak into the stratosphere without so much as a howdy-do.
Darwinism is the accepted norm for those who use their brains. I have a real problem with those who use their collective belief, in a religious parable that cannot be proven, as a point to their run for office. Huckklebuns is, IMHO, doing just that.
And that’s the topic of this thread: Get the candidates on stage for a science debate, and see just how much conservatives want their religion in government. For the uninitiated, that would be a major eye-opener.
Let me put it this way:I am totally against abortion; however, I will not in any way stand in the way of a woman’s right, as stated by the Supreme Court, to have an abortion, for the simple reason that it is not my place to judge the individual. That is between her and her God.
In that way, religion is taken out of the equation. I, personally, would like the right to abortions turned over to the states, which probably ticks off many liberals, but I could care less: I think for myself, and not as an en-mass entity.
But back on topic: How many of the bloggers here put religion as a go-no go gauge when deciding on who to vote for? Bet my point becomes more clear when you don’t try to lie to yourself.
“There is no Darwin Law up for a vote in Congress or on the table of any President to be signed. It is an irrelevant topic to be discussed.”
I beg to differ: If the IDers use that as a means in an attempt to have their belief taught in schools, it IS an attempt to counter Darwin’s theory. So indeed, there are attempts to counter Darwinism using religious means. And they could, and probably will at some time, come up for vote by the Supreme court, Congress, or the president.
ANY attempt to consider Creationism as an alternative to Darwinism, as that is what Creationism implies, by any government office, is nothing other than religious based. Anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling only themselves.
O, gravity is also a theory. Any biblical references countering that? Okay, maybe at the institute of stupid research, which in many cases does resemble government. But that’s another thread:-)
I think the debate on global warming/climate change has been forgotten here. Now THAT would be interesting in so far as to exactly what each candidate both believes and knows.
I was a product of the Kansas public school system, so I’m relieved to find a (relatively) educated discussion on this (it was hard for me to hold my head up as an ex-Kansan for so long, during your evolution wars).
I, too, wish for a scientifically literate president, in contrast to the distinctly ANTI-scientific administration we currently have. Science should give us impartial data to base good decisions on (global warming, pollution, land-use). Mr. Bush, I submit, is worse than a science ignoramus; his administration has systematically politicized science. I think another science illiterate would be a distinct threat to America. Let ‘em show us their science knowledge!
Darwinian evolutionary theory has little to no practical science application, so it would be a waste of time anyway. But since the majority of American don’t believe in Darwinian evolutionary theory, maybe it would be a boost for Huckabee.
Realistically Presidents can’t know everything, and science is a good example. To have candidates debate the details of a scientific theory is stupid. The trait to look for in a candidate is the ability to surround themselves with good people.
To denounce billions of years of evolution, of which the hypothesis are stunning, is definitely a reason to keep someone out of office. Religion and ignorance have evolved side by side for 2000+ years. I prefer an athiest over a Baptist jackass.
“But since the majority of American don’t believe in Darwinian evolutionary theory, maybe it would be a boost for Huckabee.”
Not surprising since the average American can only read on an 8th grade level.There aren’t any candidates smart enough to debate science anyway..except for Al Gore.
Outlander-ish,You wrote the majority of Americans do not believe in Darwin evolution. What do the majority of Americans believe in? I think it is acceptable to believe in God and evolution….it’s the religion that muddles it all up.
Too bad Al Gore ISN’T a candidate!
I think Gore could still get in. He should. I like him…now. Before he was too mechanical but still better than fratboy.It will never happen…but I would like to see Barney Frank hold a national leadership role someday. Secretary of Health and Human Services, or Chief of Staff, or whatever. The guy is a smart, articulate, well read, leader.
Gore is adamant that he won’t run..he’d never try to steal Hilary’s thunder. But he’d win for sure…there aren’t any candidates I’d vote for right now.
Hey Mary it was good to see you again the other day.
Gore is too good for the Presidency. I don’t say that because that is how he feels.
I would not blame him if it was how he felt though.
This country had its chance for an Al Gore Presidency and it failed. We have paid and pay a heavy price for that.
2007 a year for weather records worldwidehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records_1
“The question makes two convenient categories out of people on the GW issue – Acceptance or in the words of GW alarmists – Deniers.
There is a third alternate answer to the question.
That is, we just don’t know enough about the Climate Science to make a determination.”
Posted by: Kansas | December 29, 2007 at 07:31 AM
Actually, the people in the third category are ignorant, confused, or just plain LIARS.
I am a fundamentalist Christian. I think a science debate would be interesting. I would like to hear the democratic candidates explain the origin of life as they understand it.
The dems won’t get asked of course, we only use science in an attempt to embarrass republican candidates.
If you asked ten liberals on this BLOG to explain the theory of Darwinian Evolution You would get five rather good reasonable definitions, (not all the same of course) three insults, one blank stare and an indignant refusal to ‘play the game’.
It is a myth that there is a “Republican War on Science”. There is however a ‘war on republicans’ by certain scientists.
A science debate by presidential candidates would have no practical use in determining the next president.
MaryAl Gore has refused to debate:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20873
Probably because a prominent debate society already gave the “realists” a “win” over the GW alarmists, in another debate:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20938&CFID=10251675&CFTOKEN=19027532
By the way, Cosmos stated, on another thread, that “science is not about debate” and then qualified that comment by adding that the “debate” occurs through “peer review” — and that the rest of us peons and morons, basically, have no say in what his annointed “experts” come up with, for all of us.
Don’t let me put words in your mouth, Cosmos.
Did I understand you correctly?
Kansas: asking a candidate about their position or beliefs on any matter does not constitute a “test.” So, religion is off-limits? Bull. If a candidate believes that Captain Kangaroo is god, then I want to know about it. Having information and demanding that candidates answer our questions on issues like science (or anything else that affects public policy) is a legitimate exercise. The religious test clause of The Constitution has no bearing on this question. I’m tired of people saying that questions about religion or faith are irrelevant. Romney and Huckabee, just for starters, have made faith a central component of their campaigns, so it’s fair game.
If you asked 1000 fundamentalist christians their theory of god you’d get 999 telling you their version citing all others are false and one honest person saying they can’t possibly know the mind of god.
“The dems won’t get asked of course, we only use science in an attempt to embarrass republican candidates.”Posted by Hank.
Hank, if that isn’t nonsense, I don’t know what is.
“A science debate by presidential candidates would have no practical use in determining the next president.”
I beg to differ: Science is under attack on many levels, and not all by Republicans. What is needed is a presidential candidate science debate to learn what they know about science, and to determine how they would react to both the junk and real science out there.
Unfortunately for some, this is the 21st century, and science fact needs to be separated from science fiction, and our future presidents have to know how to do that. If science fact gets in the way of faith-based beliefs, I want to know how any future president will react. I would hope, as an elected government official, he or she would react on the science side.
ghotiphaze, I think you’d get more than 1,000 answers if you asked “1000 fundamentalist christians” ANY question. There would be their first response (knee jerk), then the nuanced response, then the talking point given them. They would end up so confused they would need to ask that the question be repeated and begin again. At that point they would argue semantics until everyone bores of them and still they would continue arguing for the sake of arguing. Sound familiar?
Well Linda, I think that your response is indicative of the liberal bias toward any one of faith.
I believe that I know enough about Darwinian evolution that I could mount a reasonable defense of either side of the issue.
I really believe that it takes a lot more blind faith to believe in evolution than it does to accept the divinity of Christ.
Hank, if that isn’t nonsense, I don’t know what is.
Posted by: J M Walker | December 29, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Really Mr. Walker? Why?
From Randy’s link,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/a-new-topic-for-debate/#more-3466
“Lawrence Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and an organizer of the effort, said he became convinced of the need for a debate after hearing Mike Huckabee, a Republican candidate, defend Biblical creation against Darwinism.”
Of course, Mr Krause immediately attempted to show that they weren’t biased, republican/democrat or left/right but his explanation only proved further bias!
“The debate effort was not directed against Mr. Huckabee, left, or Republicans generally, Mr. Krauss said, even though the group’s steering committee includes Chris Mooney, author of “The Republican War on Science” (Basic Books, 2006), a denunciation of the way the Bush administration deals with science.”
“… and that the rest of us peons and morons, basically, have no say in what his annointed “experts” come up with, for all of us.”
Posted by econ101
No econ101, you do NOT understand.
Again, they are not MY “annointed “experts”".
They are the climate scientists who do peer-reviewed science.
ksagnostic explains the process very well,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/12/a-duty-to-care.html#comment-95150988
A very good source of info re political interference, “Engage the 2008 Presidential Candidates”, etc.
‘Scientific Integrity’http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
Not to change the subject. JR it was good to see you, too.
I’ve come to realize in the past few days how important my family is to me during a crisis. I’ve recieved so much comfort from being around all my loved ones the last two days….no one should take the people they care about for granted. My brother-in-law was at my house not even two weeks ago for our early celebration, I gave him a bottle of wine for Xmas, now I wish we would have opened it and drank it together…who knew that two days later he’d be in intensive care and dead two days after Xmas. Thank you for your support, JR.
My daughter and I are taking some time away from the sadness to see “Across The Universe” at the Palace this afternoon….it is a “must see” for any serious Beatle fan, I highly recommend it. The music and artistic expression of it is fabulous.
Hank, evolution is science and creationism is religion…apples and oranges.
Sorry, but there is much more physical evidence that the earth is older than 8,000 years and that it took longer than 6 days to create.
It’s not even “apples and oranges”, it more like apples and rocks.
Linda,Try asking 1,000 fundamentalists to draw an accurate picture of God (actually or verbally), and about 998 of them would draw a picture of their daddies. Of course they wouldn’t recognize it as such.
Linda,Try asking 1,000 fundamentalists to draw an accurate picture of God (actually or verbally), and about 998 of them would draw a picture of their daddies. Of course they wouldn’t recognize it as such.
Sorry about the double post- cat on keyboard.
So tell me Mary, how do you believe life began?
Some puddle of goo and a magical spark?
Please enlighten us on how much better science is than creation on proof.
Because there is just as much indication of a young earth as there is an old earth.
People don’t get it. Darwinism is a hotwire issue and one of Philosophical Science.
Besides, discussion of Darwinism belongs at the State level as State’s decide what to put in their classrooms as we recently witnessed that here in Kansas.
Before I get labeled a religious nut, I believe the subset of Darwinism falls into the larger set of creationism, not the other way around.
I don’t believe we have enough knowledge to assign years in the age of the earth, but I not a Biblical literalist either that will state thousands of years as earth’s age.
As stated before, ask questions that can be introduced, funded, legislated by Congress and then signed by the President.
Darwinism doesn’t qualify under those terms as it is a philosophy of science that does not derive out of D.C. The President is not running for the President of the Darwin Club, he/she is running for the President of the United States.
Some non-organic materials zapped with electricity protected between layers of mica develop into amino acids which organize into nucleotides which form RNA which can self-replicate and mutate into DNA which is life.
On the other hand creationism said a magic man that lives in the clouds waved a magic wand and everything popped into existence.
There really is no comparison.
Doug,
That is simply a much fancier way of saying that you believe life began in a puddle of goo after a magical spark.
You are right. There is no comparison between believing that God created life and life beginning in some puddle of goo with a magical spark.
So-called “darwinism” is the crucial organizing principle in evolutionary biology. Contrary to what Outie said, it has practical application on a daily basis.
How on Earth could it be out-of-bounds to ask candidates about it—in a debate about SCIENCE, the exact subject–particularly when some have voluntarily made it an issue?
Nathan = no scientific explanation
You’ll continue to whine but you’ll never provide evidence for your position.
Doug,
Do you have any evidence for yours?
Last I checked science has no way of showing that all the amino acids needed for life can be formed in any puddle of goo by a magical spark.
Even after they manipulated the conditions beyond what they even think were possible in an atmosphere which science says would have existed at the time, they still couldn’t do it.
So where is your scientific proof?
Rage,
The problem is that Evolutionary theory spans over half a dozen huge times in the creation of the Universe and only the last bit of it is what applies to biology and other fields of science.
The point which is constantly used to mock Republicans is the part of Evolution which deals with the creation of life and it’s diversity we see today.
One doesn’t have to believe one bit of Evolution beyond the micro side of things (which is not contested by us religious people ) to operate in today’s scientific fields.
I know many people who are doctors, physicists, chemists, and who work in many other fields who believe in creation and have no problems at all.
Rage,
It’s a “gotcha” question and most purists of Darwinism know it’s a “gotcha” question.
What I mean by “gotcha” is that either you believe in it or you don’t. There is no leeway provided to have alternative views.
I don’t know all of the World’s faith, but I think Hindu is one that believes in re-incarnation. How does that fit into Darwinism and is it even appropriate to ask?
Darwinism in not pure science as it is a Philosophy of science. There are as many speculations in Darwinism as there are answers, maybe even more.
Let’s list a few
- no one really can figure out the missing link- no one really knows how life was created.- no one can prove ascension of man by using DNA things that occurred hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago because DNA doesn’t survive in tact that long.- no one can fully explain the extinction of some species and the survival of others….and so on and so forth.
It is more about a philosophical trend using science, than it is a pure science.
The majority of evolution cannot be observed, one of the principles of the scientific method.
The majority of evolution via Darwinism cannot be repeated, one of the principles of scientific method.
The theory of evolution cannot be repeated on the same scale and most likely never will be. There is no magic ray gun like in Star Trek that does a “Genesis Machine” and turn a rock planet into a living planet.
What it boils down to is a test to classify people into believers or deniers of a science that isn’t totally proven.
As I said, it’s a “gotcha” question.
Liberals want to put people in a categorical box. If only humans were that easy to categorize.
Nathan, as much of current scientific research takes “macro-evolution” as given (lucky for us), if someone can veto bills and allocate adminstrative funds, it makes a BIG difference.
There is nothing that keeps a candidate from making the argument you just did. In fact, some probably will.
And it’s about science. It’s ALWAYS been about science. It’s just that some people have a religious objection to the science.
Rage,
I see you are playing the old tactic still.
Religious people have no problems with science.
The discussion is about Evolutionary theory.
Yet you choose to keep switching the word to science.
It is deceptive and not honest.
P.S. Nathan, I’m not saying the “spark and goo” (as you put it) originated life, but I believe Doug was referring to this experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
“The discussion is about Evolutionary theory.
Yet you choose to keep switching the word to science.”
Heh! That’s priceless!
Ok, Nathan, you win. No questions about gravity either.
Rage,
I know all about that experiment.
My comments were a direct criticism of it.
Rage,
It is not priceless.
I can intelligently discuss Evolutionary Theory just fine.
Instead you choose to say I am rejecting “science.”
It is a cheap debate tactic.
I am not rejecting “science” I simply don’t agree with many facets of Evolutionary Theory.
So instead of debating that with me, you choose to say I reject “science” in general as to mock me.
Weak. Very weak.
Nathan, as much of current scientific research takes “macro-evolution” as given (lucky for us), if someone can veto bills and allocate adminstrative funds, it makes a BIG difference.Posted by: Rage | December 29, 2007 at 02:48 PM
Thanks for making my point Rage. There is no “Darwin Law” on the books or in our Constitution.
This countries’ Constitution was founded before Darwinism. It’s principles are very generic in nature for the most part and it is by the principles of the Constitution that we apply the test to future Presidents.
Applying Darwinism as a substitute for a Constitutional test is well, unconstitutional.
The law of physics cannot explain the precessional movements of Mars. Mars appears to have a mind of its own. Yet, Mars still does what it does. (change in the direction of the axis of a rotating object)
The office of the President is not about science.
The office of the President is an individual that is elected by a subscribed process under the guideline of our Constitution.
Darwinism is not in the Constitution of the United States and should not be used as a test.
Before the abortionists get all spunked up; abortion is an issue of individual rights – not a philosophy of science.
O—kay. Rather than indulge this ridiculous nonsense, I’ll ask a simple question:
What, if any. question would be a “fair” one about evolution?
Funny how this sudden sensitivity to the issue is miraculously absent in school board elections.
Rage,
What ridiculous nonsense?
You mean the nonsense of saying I am rejecting “science” in general when we are talking about Evolution?
Whatever. Once again: What’s wrong with asking the candidates about it? And if there IS something wrong with it, what would be a fair question then?
What, if any. question would be a “fair” one about evolution?
Funny how this sudden sensitivity to the issue is miraculously absent in school board elections.
Posted by: Rage | December 29, 2007 at 03:07 PM
You are finally getting it Rage. Evolution discussion belongs in a State’s education system.
Tell me Rage, exactly what does Evolution have to do with becoming President of the United States?
My guess is, that is a test that would be used to single out those of a particular faith or belief.
Therefore, in it’s very premise, the Evolution test is unconstitutional in its very basic construct as it applies to the qualification for President of the United States.
Agreeing or disagreeing with Evolution is not written in the Constitution, nor should it be.
And it should never be used as a test of qualification, period.
Rage,
There is nothing wrong in asking the candidates about it. Any question would be fine.
Ask all of them though.
The only ones asked are the Republicans.
All these “Do you beat your wife” questions by Libs are becoming boorish.
“Tell me Rage, exactly what does Evolution have to do with becoming President of the United States?
My guess is, that is a test that would be used to single out those of a particular faith or belief.
Therefore, in it’s very premise, the Evolution test is unconstitutional in its very basic construct as it applies to the qualification for President of the United States.”
The “religious test,” like the rest of the Constitution, is a limitation on government, not on CNN. And the “do you believe in evolution?” question has already been asked. In general, I believe it’s unhealthy to choose candidates based on religious ideology (or lack thereof), but the Constitution doesn’t control what people do.
So you’re afraid conservative Christians will be exposed as. . .conservative Christians? If that’s so, my how times have changed! Still, it sounds like the same old BS persecution complex to me. And if your people can’t defend their views about biological science in an open forum, it’s not my problem.
Presidents can deny funds to vital research for ideological reasons, religious or otherwise. That’s a valid secular issue.
I guess you’re afraid that getting into the details will show the ignorance and illogic of creationist ideologues.
“The only ones asked are the Republicans.”
Heh, like the Dems would have any problem with it. Fine. Make it so.
This is what it all comes down to:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704A.shtml
Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that “if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3. ” The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.”Just in the past few months,” Bartlett said, “I think a light has gone off for people who’ve spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he’s always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.” Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush’s governance, went on to say: “This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can’t be persuaded, that they’re extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he’s just like them. . . .
“This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,” Bartlett went on to say. “He truly believes he’s on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.” Bartlett paused, then said, “But you can’t run the world on faith.”
Rage,
The problem is that the only people grilled or asked the question are those who can’t defend it very well.
Most if not all of the candidates, be them Democrats or Republicans, are not trained scientists.
If you want to have a serious discussion on Evolutionary theory, then lets debate it with those who are better versed on it and spend their time studying it and going around debating it.
Of course, those are not the people asked or talked to.
The media would rather ask a Republican candidate a pointed question about it to trip them up and then mock them for rejecting “science” like you tried to do here.
Again Rage, for about the fifth time I’ve written in this thread, if CNN or anyone else wants to ask a question about something that can be introduced, funded, passed as legislation and signed by the President, I consider that fair.
Embryonic Stem Cell funding would be an example.
Evolution is a philosophy of a particular science.
There is nothing Congress or the President of the United States can do or should do interacting with evolutionary philosophies. That is done at the lowest levels of our societies and at the State levels when it comes to the education and research of it.
What funds are you saying that a President can deny if he/she doesn’t fully, partially or completely agree/disagree with Darwinism and the theory of Evolution?
What funding proposal do you have in mind that encompasses Evolution
I’m willing to bet that what you will come up with is a process of method and has nothing to do with Evolutionary theory or Darwinism.
You keep calling a well-establishment scientific framework a “philosophy” and will continue to do so, flying in the face of the facts.
I’m not going to waste my time explaining that which has been explained on this blog, OVER and OVER, frequently by person more qualified than myself.
CNN can ask the questions. They should.
I’m done.
Kans,”Tell me Rage, exactly what does Evolution have to do with becoming President of the United States?”
The question would help eliminate those who are too dumb to be President and thus avoid a repetition of our current state of affairs.
Heh, I typed “establishment” by mistake! I guess you can have fun with that.
I’m not going to waste my time explaining that which has been explained on this blog, OVER and OVER, frequently by person more qualified than myself.
CNN can ask the questions. They should.
I’m done.
Posted by: Rage | December 29, 2007 at 03:46 PM
Again Rage, just what funding fears do you have?
The National Science Foundation is still funded and will continue to be funded.
The U.S. Geological Society, which has much of theory based on the planets formation and uses Evolutionary Theory has been funded and will be funded.
NASA is still funded and will be funded.
The Smithsonian Museum has items of Evolution in it and studies that do Evolution. Has it been defunded?
The eminent James Hansen, the father scientist of man made Global Warming is paid by the government and gets his funds from the government.
Oceans, ancient and current are being studied by the U.S. government and paid for by the U.S. government.
So Rage,
Tell me your fear of what won’t be funded by the U.S. government that isn’t already funded?
How can all these government agencies exists and do work that require knowledge of evolutionary theory be in jeopardy when there are no signs they are not in jeopardy?
I know the answer, but you Rage, and people of your ilk refuse to admit the answer.
You want to put an unconstitutional gate for measuring candidates through via proxy using news media.
Isn’t that a fair assessment Rage?
I see nothing in the Federal Government that is being endangered by people of various beliefs.
Kans,”Tell me Rage, exactly what does Evolution have to do with becoming President of the United States?”
The question would help eliminate those who are too dumb to be President and thus avoid a repetition of our current state of affairs.
Posted by: Jed | December 29, 2007 at 03:46 PM
I know a few scientists and professors that could answer most questions on Evolution.
However, they would make very poor politicians as they are frank, impatient with activity outside of their own fields and lacking other characteristics desirable in a President.
Your observation of intelligence is only relevant to the task at hand Jed.
We are not electing a Chief Scientist, we have plenty of those in the government.
“Hank, if that isn’t nonsense, I don’t know what is.
Posted by: J M Walker | December 29, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Really Mr. Walker? Why?”
Posted by Hank.
You give one guys opinion and it degenerates into, ” The dems won’t get asked of course, we only use science in an attempt to embarrass republican candidates.”? So by your reckoning, pred phelps speaks for all republicans?
At the risk of sounding redundant, “Nonsense!”
“We are not electing a Chief Scientist, we have plenty of those in the government.”
Posted by kansas.
Yep . . . let’s elect a republican Luddite . . . wait . . . they’re all Luddites, aren’t they?
I find your use of the term Luddite inexplicable detached from the current topic J M Walker.
Perhaps you will elaborate your seemingly incorrect use of the term as it applies to this topic.
Is it too much to hope we might elect someone who may not be educated in science and realizes s/he isn’t and needs to consult with those who are? Someone who is capable of using much more than her / his gut to make decisions?
I am confident we will do much better than what we currently have! Perhaps even someone who realizes the value of good advise!
If I were asking questions of candidates I would want to be assured that they have an open mind and want the best advise possible on all subjects. It is very important to me that our next president recognize the differences between religion and science.
“Darwin called the origin of flowering plants an “abominable mystery,” but it is not the only one. The scientific materialism that strives to explain all reality by “natural” causes without resource to a designing intelligence has a long way to go. Occasionally, major gaps in cosmic evolution and biological evolution become evident in scientific papers and announcements.”
A must read for all true science lovers is What Materialist Science Still Can’t Figure Out 12/21/2007
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200712.htm
Kansas is correct.
We’ve had Darwinism in government. It was called eugenics It led to the forced sterilization of huge numbers of children and adolescents because they were “unfit to procreate”. Except they were all too fit, which is why they had to be sterilized.
Real science is skeptical. There are tens of thousands of scientifically expert engineers and doctors who are skeptical of the generation of life from non-replicating chemicals, the compartmentalization of chemicals and generative processes in a single cell, the evolution of such to multicellular colonies, then the differentiation of cells to form multi-tissue organisms, and so on to produce Homo sapiens as a transient intermediate organism that will become extinct within a million or so years. Or they may be artificially propagated to be used for experiments, like lab rats and monkeys are used by humans today.
If some “scientifically expert” people want to have this vision, that’s fine. But it doesn’t mean that people who aspire to a deeper understanding of humanity’s place in the universe have to buy into it. Of course if you steal their children and send them to daily indoctrination prison it’s easier.
Home-school your kids and put up candidates who support vouchers.
“Perhaps you will elaborate your seemingly incorrect use of the term as it applies to this topic.”
A Luddite is a person who dislikes technology, especially technological devices that threaten existing jobs or interfere with personal privacy.
A Luddite is someone who is incompetent when using new technology.
As this is a discussion, or thread, concerning a presidential candidates scientific debate, I use the word Luddite as a means to show the republican candidates adherence to the above definition.
In my way of thinking, it is used correctly. So, detached? I think not. In fact I just attached it to your candidates. Now go find the ends of the earth and fall off . . . bring a coke bottle:-)
“So by your reckoning, pred phelps speaks for all republicans?”
Phred is a democrat.
Okay J M Walker,
Then all the candidates of all parties are Luddites except for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a physician and highly educated in science, medicine and technology.
You just disqualified all Democratic Party Candidates.
How about them apples? :)
Phelps is a registered democrat.
Oh and Ron Paul, the only scientist of the candidates on both sides doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution. :)
Any thinking person has no problem marrying God and the development of man.
Even the Catholic church, the one supposedly founded by Christ, Himself, understands that. No where, in any of their teachings, do they even hint at man being 5000 or so years old. They correctly leave that to science, because even they do not proclaim to know the mind of God.
Where fundamentalists lose in the argument, is they fail to understand the mind of man, and the thought processes instilled in man By god. Intelligence is a terrible thing to waste, and God hates waste.
Look at the middle east, especially Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. They have been in centuries old wars over religion, instead of using the intelligence God gave them, and building a lasting society, free of religious hate. Why? Religious fundamentalism, and hatred/fear of anyone who doesn’t think like them.
That is what religion brings to government, and that is why it’s important to elect a leader who knows the difference. But that is only one reason there should be a scientific debate among the candidates.
Luddites were craftspeople who made whole products. They didn’t want to do machine-based work that forced them to do one operation hour-after-hour.
After most of them were eliminated, the ultra-wealthy sought out their products as showcase items of art and artisanship. That’s one of the hallmarks the rich even today: putting Luddite products into their own homes to impress their friends.
Okay J M Walker, I’ll ask you what I asked Rage, but he left my question unanswered.
What Federal Government programs do you feel are endangered if the evolution question isn’t answered correctly by your standards – by a candidate and that candidate gets elected?
I can’t think of any.
“Phelps is a registered democrat”
Okay, how about David Dukes, a former Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives? He good enough for you. I’ll put one phred phelps up against your david dukes, and maybe they’ll both eradicate each other.
O, and kansas? “You just disqualified all Democratic Party Candidates.” . . From being Luddites.
“What Federal Government programs do you feel are endangered if the evolution question isn’t answered correctly by your standards – by a candidate and that candidate gets elected?”
A red herring by kansas, again.
I’ll answer that: There may not be any agency at risk now, but that can change at any time. That’s what a president has to be prepared for: change.
Did gravity not exist until it was “discovered”? By the same token, because at this time there is no litigation concerning the subject, it doesn’t mean it ain’t going to happen.
No one thought much about abortion until it made it to court, and look what’s happened since. The minor battles over teaching and creationism, er, intelligent design, in this state, showed how divisive the subject can be. If you can’t extrapolate that into something happening in the future to create a national problem, you ain’t thinking.
Your question has just been answered.
So J M Walker, you still haven’t answered the question I posed at
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/12/needed-a-presid.html#comment-95187842
Did gravity not exist until it was “discovered”?
Actually gravity existed before we knew what to call it for obvious reasons.
We even have a term for absence of gravity (zero gravity)
How that relates to questions on evolution, I don’t follow.
“How that relates to questions on evolution, I don’t follow.”
Being as how you believe in creationism, I don’t doubt that. But feel fee to cherry pick all you want.
I did answer the question, as I saw fit. If you can’t, or wont, understand that then your red herring is showing, and you are in dire need of covering it up. Might I suggest a copy of Al Gore’s book?
I don’t believe I’m cherry picking, I’m using a logical approach to the topic at hand.
I think we all are creationists, some just believe in a deity-free creation.
Evolution is a subset of Creationism , regardless of one’s belief in a Deity.
I see my question still goes unanswered, but I never expected it to be answered by those who are ideologically centric.
It does show that people will avoid answering central questions when pinned down. :)
If my questions made you uncomfortable and you felt like I was using a bias behind the question, then I have succeeded.
The evolution and Darwinism questions “evolve” (lol) from the same type of bias and hold no value in a Presidential debate.
Might I suggest a copy of Al Gore’s book?
Posted by: J M Walker | December 29, 2007 at 06:06 PM
Al Gore is not a scientist.
The very important question we should all ask ourselves when casting our vote is do we agree with the philosophies of this person enough to want him /her to be a Supreme Court Justice? Although there have been some Supremes who were disappointments to those presidents who nominated them, most reflect the philosophies of the person doing the nominating. And those judges (at all levels, but especially the Supremes) last a long time – much longer than the term of the president.
Into the future laws will be decided by judges and we each need to think hard about what kind of judges will be put into office by the person we vote for.
“Might I suggest a copy of Al Gore’s book?
Posted by: J M Walker | December 29, 2007 at 06:06 PM
Al Gore is not a scientist.”
Geeze, kansas, you have no sense of humor, which, if all of you (please don’t include me in your “all encompassing” statement)are creationists, I can believe. And here you thought I had no faith.
“If my questions made you uncomfortable and you felt like I was using a bias behind the question, then I have succeeded.”
Wow, no sense of humor, and no lack of ego, either.
kansas, nothing you say, do or think could, in your wildest dreams, make me uncomfortable.
How ’bout Senator Byrd?
“Kansas is correct.
“We’ve had Darwinism in government. It was called eugenics It led to the forced sterilization of huge numbers of children and adolescents because they were “unfit to procreate”. Except they were all too fit, which is why they had to be sterilized.”
Once again, MPS, with the blantant intellectual dishonesty. The odious practice of human eugenics has roots that go much farther back than Charles Darwin (although Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, is associated with the idea).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/SocDarw.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1129-28.htm
It should be noted that I differ with the Common Dreams essay some. Some creationists actually have, both historically and even now, opposed the social darwinist approach to politics, and some libertarian anarcho-capitalist conservatives support a version of social darwinism. It was the confusion of social darwinism with Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection and evolution in general that motivated people like William Jennings Bryan (very much an economic liberal) to oppose the teaching of evolution.
However, it is morally reprehensible to represent social darwinism as something advocated or embraced by scientists who work in evolutionary science, or those who believe in evolution as the most likely explanation for biological diversity. It is particularly ironic and reprehensible to attach social darwinism and eugenics to Charles Darwin, a man who lost his beloved daughter to disease (exactly the sort of death a eugenicist would have shrugged off as “good for the species”).
I would MUCH rather have a President well versed in science than one well versed in religion.
I cite the last almost 7 years as validation.
Into the future laws will be decided by judges and we each need to think hard about what kind of judges will be put into office by the person we vote for.
Posted by: lindainks55 | December 29, 2007 at 06:30 PM
lindainks and others,
May I draw your attention to the
Article VI of the Constitution:All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
It bears repeating the last phrase:
“…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. ”
Are any of you Libs adherent to the wise policy of our Constitution or do you wish to make up rules as we go along? :)
I only hope the interpretation is the one I agree with.
You make it sound like there has never been any disagreement with what The Constitution says. Guess you think everything has always been crystal clear and everyone has always agreed.
“Thank you for your support, JR.”
Well you are very welcome Mary. All I did was listen a little and give ya a hug. I’m glad I could be a friendly face at a difficult time.
My condolences again. Oh and when you are in a better mood? Check out the Alvin and the Chipmunks movie. It’ll make ya smile.
Hey next time ya go to the deli, can I tag along??
“…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. ”
One could very easily interpret the above statement to mean a person of religion is disqualified to serve in a public trust or office. So asking a candidate if he or she is religious, and that person answering, “yes”, could be considered a test, and therefore a disqualification to serve.
Under that interpretation, all candidates, as far as I can tell, are disqualified.
I hereby nominate pee-wee herman!
One could very easily interpret the above statement to mean a person of religion is disqualified to serve in a public trust or office. So asking a candidate if he or she is religious, and that person answering, “yes”, could be considered a test, and therefore a disqualification to serve.
Under that interpretation, all candidates, as far as I can tell, are disqualified.
I hereby nominate pee-wee herman!
Posted by: J M Walker | December 29, 2007 at 07:32 PM
Except for the fact that the Constitution states that NO religious test will be required as Qualification. :)
When it comes to anything written by kansas, the old, whose on first, no whose on second routine comes to mind. Cause that’s about all you’ll get out of him.
Damn, I still don’t feel uncomfortable. Go figure.
Kansas,
As you sail forth from the shores of the Weblog, let me take a brief moment (very brief short one as both KU is playing and New England) and take stock in our blogsphere friend Kansas. You are a seasoned and well equipped warrior of the blog. Your metal has been tested and found worthy. Your body armor is complete and you are girded in the strength of any ten liberal bloggers hereonto pertaining. I am reminded of the greek wordArtios, which means complete. It is used only one time in the bible and is found in the new testament in the second book of Timothy, Chapter 3. It’s meaning is in the context of versus 16 through 17. “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
You are that “complete” man. Your ship is stocked full and is fully equipped and ready for not one, not two, but EVERY good work. As your ship makes ready to depart our shores, there are many here who have admired your stamina, wit, and sound council from afar. Now we are on the shoreline tonight. As you assemble your crew and makeyour sails ready, we are waiting your departure with profound saddness. But weknow you are well provisioned and ready to face any friend or foe across the seven seas.
We wish you, fair winds and following Seas.
Respectfully,
Pat Herron (aka: authorized KANSAS nic user)
Hey Walker,
Ya musta missed it. “kansas” “died” or sailed away or something.
Meanwhile the blogger behind “kansas” put on fishnets and heels and is now Pat Herron pending moving into “kansas” old nic.
A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
“What a waste it is to lose a mind, or not to have a mind.”–
Dan Quayle
Kansas, or Pat, or whoever:It may shock you, but I have more important things to do with my time than this.
I might–might–address your stupid question in detail (though probably way late in the evening, as usual).
But just a taste: Heard of No Child Left Behind? Or the Mexico City Policy? Or the constantly censored science under the current regime?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Rage over and out. . .
P.S. I see MPS popped up with his usual brainless “ought-is” fallacy.
By his logic, since medical researchers have found Afrrican- Americans are more suspectible to hypertension and sickle-cell anemia, than they are obviously closet members of the Klan.
P.P.S. BTW, Nathan & Kansas, thanks for acknowledging that the objection to evolution is all about religion, and has nothing to do with science.
“…While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.”–”What I Think About Evolution,” Sam Brownback, New York Times, 5/31/2007
Thanks to Sam Brownback and his statement, any serious candidate, Dem or Rep, owes Americans an explanation of his views on the theory of evolution.
Somebody asked about how a candidate’s “stance” on the theory of evolution could ever affect funding. The answer is right there in Brownback’s last sentence, repeated here:
“Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.”–”What I Think About Evolution,” Sam Brownback, New York Times, 5/31/2007
Brownback begins with a faith-based assumption and from this assumption he rejects — and thus would not fund — any primary science that might show otherwise. Even if it led to greater truth, Brownback would reject it. (”I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.”: this rejects the possibility that humans were created by any non-”willed” process and that humans were not created for a purpose, solely on the basis of Brownback’s faith)
That’s bad science, as I’m sure MPS would agree. In fact, Brownback’s editorial shows us that he’s profoundly anti-science in that he would reject any truth that does not fit his presuppositions about will and purpose.
Americans are not idiots. We DESERVE to know if any candidates agree with Brownback, and would proactively prevent the discovery of truth like Brownback apparently would.
Based on the events of the past 7 years, we are entitled as citizens to know if any potential candidates would “alter” NEW facts to fit their CURRENT ideology: we’ve seen all too well where that pattern of thinking has led us in Iraq (one example).
NOTE: I’m not arguing that Brownback isn’t wise: he may very well be. I am arguing that the views of any candidate who would agree with Brownback are 100% germane to the debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html
Just checking to see if Nathan provided any evidence for his position. Hmmmmm, nope. Typical. Science once again rules the day leaving the knuckle draggers whining.
Just checking to see if Doug ever provided any evidence for how life began in a puddle of goo with a magical spark.
Looks like you Evolution believers have yet to prove how life began in a puddle of goo.
Nathan,
As has been explained to you many times before, evolutionary theory does not include a position on how life _began_. Your “puddle of goo” and “magical spark” is a straw-man argument used by radical, fundamentalist “Christians.”
Some think that all truth lies in the realm of science. That is humanistic folly. The question of origins lies squarely at the intersection of science and religion. Puddle of goo vs God breathed.
The fact is, neither theory can be proven. Thus each requires faith to believe. So cast your lot with whatever you think represents the truth. You are either an accident whose existence has no meaning, or you are God created with a purpose and an eternal soul.
Outlander,
What is with this “puddle of goo” crap that you and Nathan keep bringing up?
What’s the goo made of? What compounds does it contain? What is the temperature? What’s the pH? Is the “goo” ionized? Is it exposed to some form of particularly harsh radiation? If so, what kind of radiation?
You keep throwing “goo” around as though it’s some sort of benign, inert substance. That’s not very scientific of you.
I am either the result of 15 billion years of evolution of matter to consciousness or…
I am the creation of a “God” who threw me into the world and then forgot about me. He knows the number of hairs on my head I am told. But I am NOT to tempt him with questions. Mine is not to question why but to believe (in the absence of any proof) or die.
I take being the stuff of stars and time and NOT the forgotten product of a negligent and dismissive creator. The stars and science I can see. “God” I don’t know the guy.
If I am the end result of 15 billion years of evolution, I have an obligation to the life of everyone and everything around me.
If I am the forgotten second hand throwaway of a hapless creator? Well the best I can hope for is to do what he says and then HOPE I was a good boy. MAYBE I will get to meet the creator! Or…maybe I will be punished for all eternity.
Seriously. How does any rational person believe in this crap?
Uhm, right, Outie. That has nothing to do with evolution, of course (see Tom’s post), but THIS atheist’s view on THAT crap was stated long ago:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2005/11/god_and_science.html#comment-11394314
JR you are still in the monkey phase. Someday, you may outgrow that as you evolve.
Until then, you will remain a subspecimen.
Remember, science has a whole theory on how the universe and life evolved. Yet science lacks a solid foundation on which to rest it’s case.
In short, you are stuck with the goo.
I was wondering who would talk about “monkeys” first. Pat, you get the distinction of being the Dumbest Poster Of The Day.
Not a single living scientist claims that humans evolved from “monkeys.” The _mountain_ of evidence, in everything from DNA studies to countless fossils, shows that hominids (including humans), apes, and monkeys all evolved from an older common ancestor.
Try reading a book.
Tom’s read a book, so HE knows!
Sock-puppets are the ruination of this blog. Kiss my _ _ _, Egbert.
Oh Tom, you know you secretly believe we all “evolved” from monkeys. You have proof of this older common monkey?
You were a salamander before you were a monkey. And before that, you were a fish. You probably believe you evolved from whale shit.
Still waiting to see what we “evolve” into next.
No matter how you cut it Tom, you evolved from SOMEthing under your unbalanced, and unproven theory.
Pick your own animal. I don’t really care.
I have an obligation to the life of everyone and everything around me.
Does your obligation extend to the hapless pit bull? Afterall, it was just evolving when it attacked your families little dog and your hominids. Take a bite out of that one, you hypocrite.
Hey Pat,I don’t know about you, but I’d a whole lot rather be descended from an ape that improved himself than from a mud pie that fell from grace!
Presidential Debate?
It will be most interesting when we get down to 2 candidates.
Hillary Clinton 1 on 1 with any of the Republicans.
That will be fun.
Can’t wait for Senator Clinton to be forced to give specific answers to anything.
Hell, she can’t even tell you what time it is.
Pat is “kansas” in drag and another personality.
You got that right Max. Hillary will eventually be forced to speak on the issues in the final debate. There is no doubt she is the libs girl, if just to spite the rest of us so it seems.
Not that I care. But will she pull her black bible out or stand for science in the ultimate debate?
Her vast experience as first lady, makes Laura Bush just as qualified.
Outie,If you need meaning in your life, get your damn nose out of old books and get out in the world and create some! There are more than enough opportunities.
Say Jed, did you ever answer this post?
Was wondering how you were proposing to eliminate 3 Billion people from Earth.
——————————————————————–
This isn’t a matter of religion or morality or stewardship. It’s much simpler than that; either we take care of the earth or the earth will take care of us. The first thing we must do is limit and eventually decrease our numbers to less than half the current population. If we don’t nature will, and nature is less forgiving than we are. It may not stop at less than half and go for total extinction of the species.
Posted by: Jed | December 27, 2007 at 07:27 PM
Advocating a holocaust? Who decides who lives and who dies?
Sick people are on this blog.
Posted by: Max | December 28, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Max,After this administration, if any republican gets elected to any office higher than dog catcher it will be proof positive of election fraud!
Ya Pat. Senator Clinton’s toughest question so far was a no-brainer, unless you are going after the illegal Mexican vote.
She couldn’t answer that yes or no question as to whether she supported drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
Can’t wait to see how she handles her first question thrown up that is NOT a soft ball.
Personally, I like women with big breasts, blonde, blue eyed, and long legs. Evolution at it’s finest.
Now, we have the technology to know which are true blondes, and which are not. So we can measure skulls, or give intelligence tests to determine which to “eliminate” and which to keep.
Jed likes huminoid selection over natural selection. I do too – as long as I get to pick the final solution.
Hey Max?
If you are for real.
YOU make your living using others. You call it “employing” others.
Now my take is that makes you my enemy. I never met a person like you who acted as if they could make a living without being an A$$hole.
So… when you tell me that Senator Clinton wants to take from you and give to me?
Well I’m on board with that! Why wouldn’t I be?
I got a question for the science minded posters on this subject.
How many times can you create something?
Oh thanks Jed.
Didn’t think you could answer the post from the other day.
You know, the post where you said we should eliminate 1/2 the people on the planet.
And your 12:40 post tells me “Jed” posts are scroll overs from now on.
Thanks again for the update and the wonderful words of wisdom.
It’s already been supported Nathan, you just chose to ignore the facts. Do you deny the science which shows organic material can come from inorganic materials? Do you deny that nucleotides for the basis of RNA? Do you deny that RNA is self-replicating? Do you deny that RNA is closely related to DNA? Do you deny that DNA forms the basis of most carbon life forms?
There is a lot for you to deny but as expected you failed to present any alternatives. There is only one scientific position.
Don’t read this Nathan, it may make it harder for you to deny reality:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204102500.htm
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/did-life-originate-mica-sandwich-sitting-primordial-soup-14985.html
What science do you have to suggest life just popped into existence by an intelligent being that defies the second law of thermodynamics? Nothing, of course because you are a joke. We’ve played this game before, you do nothing but whine and complain that you are intellectually inferior and you want your cave man myths to be treated as something more than tooth fairy beliefs.
You know Max, it must be really sad to spend your entire life being a follower, and never a leader. Never driving the train. Always in back somewhere complaining about “management”, but never balsy enough to speak up to them (except on a blog).
Jealousy is such a terrible trait.
A whole live with a hand stretched out full of nothing and a mouth full of “gimmee”.
And mad at the world that others are movers and shakers while for them the earth stands still.
I pity his children.
See Max? I wasn’t born with the yessir! gene that you have.
Yeah it is a harder go being my own man and not using and abusing others. But what little I have is mine and NOT on the works of anyone else.
Your spelling is failing Patkansas.
Your effort at a new identity too.
Pat, was just reading a book called: “Little Heathens”.
About a woman who grew up on a farm in Iowa in the 1930’s.
One expression:
“If you are looking for a hand, then you will find one on the end of your own arm”
Now that’s the kind of independence and self-reliance they had in the days before Socialism took over.
Max,”Advocating a holocaust? Who decides who lives and who dies?”
No, I’m not advocating a holocaust. Yet. I’m advocating some common sense and restraint in reproduction. Our numbers have more than doubled in just my lifetime, and will again in about 35 years if we don’t, and double again in about 20 more years if we haven’t got the message by then. If we can’t limit ourselves, the holocaust will come and it may be total extinction for the species; That would certainly avoid anyone having to make decisions.
I bet I know where you place that hand AND your mouth Max.
Am I reading that the libs want this election to be the “final debate” on evolution?
They want to pick their president based upon whether they believe in the “big bang theory”?
A real meaningless discussion of the next leader of the free world, and our nation.
I’d like to hear the debate on:
1) National Defense and terrorism2) Protecting our borders and reigning in the illegals.3) International Affairs and where they see our role in the world4) The economy stupid5) Medicare/Social Security6) NAFTA and it’s aftermath7) Balanced Budget8) Line Item veto Amendment9) Encouraging saving and financial independence10) Healthcare, which works for 260 million Americans, and not for 30 million
In no particular order, but I could care less on whether they believe we came from monkeys, tadpoles, or the big bang.
Bush is history, and I know he stirred up the stem cell debate. But with only a few seconds of sound bytes for us to hear, I’d not consider it in the top ten.
Good point Pat.
I see your top 10 issues are actually important issues.
The press today likes to post on anything but the important issues. Like evolution. I could give a rip what a President thinks about evolution.
Take care of those 10 items on your list and add a couple more, that’s all the next President needs to worry about.
Add:
11. Sustainable Alternative Energy to make American energy independent and environmentally cleaner.
12. Improving fishing and hunting in America.
Keep in mind Pat that a person’s lack of scientific knowledge leads them to finance stupid thinks like nuclear hand grenades, bombs that turn people gay, a space based missile defense program, abstinence only programs, CIA remote viewing research and other nonsense.
It’s basic scientific competence that people are looking for. It is a position as leader of the free world, not a sports announcer.
While I would prefer the President of the United States to be well educated, it doesn’t really matter if they believe in creationism to me.
As long as they keep it out of the classroom and it doesn’t affect my research funding, it’s such a trivial thing to worry about.
I was with you Doug until your last sentence. A little dramatic. But I suppose those of you concerned with stem cell research feel you got burned by the last clown. Still, it is not the burning issue facing our nation.
Haven’t seen any posts on the medicine or environment debate items, which do have merit. I’m afraid the blog has revealed people’s real concern is whether the next guy/gal is pro-science and not a bible thumper. I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive, but it appears people believe they are.
The other day Huckabee (who thinks the world is 6,000 years old) can’t even find Pakistan on a map.
Perhaps we should add geography as a litmus test as well as basic scientific knowledge.
And here it is folks…
What does Doug always resort to instead of science?
Name calling.
Sorry Doug, your ability to call me names and try to mock and ridicule me doesn’t make you right or support your fairy tale beliefs that life magically formed in some puddle of goo.
It’s in a book Tom read:
“DNA studies to countless fossils, shows that hominids (including humans), apes, and monkeys all evolved from an older common ancestor.”
Now that’s not “goo”. That’s an “older common ancestor”.
Of course, that older common ancestor came from somewhere.
That would have to be “goo”.
I’m tired Nathan.
Shall we explore the despicable names and accusations you and your family have made on me?
Oh goodness…
Are you back on the beaten blogger syndrome kick again JR?
One day you are one of the biggest antagonizers on the blog, the next day you are the blog king monitor who is holier than thou, and then you turn around and play the victim card.
Give it a rest already.
I fight fair Nathan.
You and your dad do not.
Now if you would LIKE me to do my take on posting as you and Hank do I can.
I’m better than that.
Well unless you ask.
JR,
Wow, you went straight from blog victim to blog king holier than thou in less than 10 minutes.
Did you take your medicine today?
Also Doug, wasn’t Ronald Reagan a sports announcer? He didn’t do too bad, did he?
I am not on any medication there Nathan.
Your dad is a kept man of a “doctor”. Maybe you could get me some?
Senator Clinton has experience in:
Whitewater investments.
Cattle future investments.
Representing Walmart.
Managing the White House Travel Office.
Bungling national health care.
Banning guns in 1994.
Selecting Janet Reno as AG.
Not capturing Osama Bin Laden when she had the chance.
Not doing anything when the USS Cole was attacked.
Black Hawk down.
Setting up a hidden filing system for 1,000 illegally obtained files in the White House and no one could find these for years!
Redecorating the White House when she moved out – it came with her!
Cleaning up after Monica.
Hey Max?
YOU are an ass sucking little toady middle manager.
Now your take that Senator Clinton would take away from a servile little suck up like you and give to a self maker like me? Well that entices me.
Max: As others would say before me: Do not feed the troll.
(me thinks he really really likes you!)
Pat, Reagan was one of the worst Presidents America ever had. He sounded reasonable when he was a Democrat but then dementia must have struck him and he started screwing things up royally, even when he was governor.
“And here it is folks…
What does Doug always resort to instead of science?
Name calling.
Sorry Doug, your ability to call me names and try to mock and ridicule me doesn’t make you right or support your fairy tale beliefs that life magically formed in some puddle of goo.”
Nah, it’s a fact that you can present anything to support your claims. Once you do perhaps the ridicule will ease a bit. Until then you keep on proving me right.
Pat,Maybe instead of denigrating it, you need to gain some respect for your elders, for “Goo.” That “Goo” is your ancestor, the reason you’re here and contains everything necessary to make you. Evolution is simply the process with which you were created by “Goo. “Glory to “Goo” in the highest!
At least Jed admits that he believes in the magical spark in the goo which created all life.
How about you Doug?
Why are you ashamed to admit what you believe in?
What is this magical spark you keep going on about, Nathan? Charles Darwin theorized this pond with ammonia and salts and I think he was the one that used the term “spark of life” (but I’d have to go back and check).
However, this was in the 1870’s, Nathan. Scientists have done a lot more work since then–not all of Darwin’s hypothesis have held up in the last 120 years.
While there are a number of hypotheses concerning the origin of life. The one that seems most plausible to me is the RNA world hypothesis. We can synthesize amino acids in the lab, lipid bilayers form spontaneously and are similar to the cell membrane and if there is a polymerase in the environment, nucleotides could form polymers capable of reproduction. However, this hasn’t been replicated in the lab.
Science does not know the answer to this. You are correct, Nathan, our knowledge of the origins of life is still very shaky, as we’ve only been experimenting with it for 50 years or so. So if you ask me how exactly life formed from non-life, I would say “I don’t know”. But you would say “It didn’t. God created everything in 6 days”.
But this “god of the gaps” reasoning presents a problem. What if we DO manage to create reproducing RNA, inside phospholipid bilayer membranes, which were formed spontaneously from inorganic molecules? If this happened, the hypothesis I suggested earlier would be supported. Doesn’t that take power away from your God? If you say “God did this because we don’t know how it happened” then everytime we find out how, your God loses a little bit of support.
That’s sad, really.
Finding Darwin’s God is a great book for anyone who thinks evolution and theology cannot coexist. It was written by a devout Roman Catholic experimental biologist.
Hey Nathan,”At least Jed admits that he believes in the magical spark in the goo which created all life.”
You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about sparks, “magical” or otherwise.
Asking a candidate their position on a topic like evolution is NOT unconstitutional. Just because you don’t like the question doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Also, it is remarkable how so many people who are hypercritical of evolution and evolutionary theory actually know so little about science. It must make it a lot easier to dismiss evolution if you don’t know any science. It’s kind of like saying that the english language is only a theory because you don’t know the alphabet.
Just checking in to see if Nathan ever presented any evidence for his position. Hmmm, nope, still not yet. How typical.
Doug,
Have you created life in a puddle of goo or proven it yet?
Just checking…
I presented science, you presented nothing. Alas, you whine like the bitch you are. Nothing has changed.
Science has proved that life began in goo?
Nathan, science has proven that life began in an aquatic environment. Call it goo if you like but the fact remains the planet isn’t six thousand years old and life wasn’t created out of nothing. Naturally you can’t present anything to support your position so there really isn’t a debate, and you have proven that.
Doug,
Science has not proven that life began in a puddle of goo.
Call it an aquatic environment if you like but the fact remains the planet isn’t billions of years old and life didn’t just begin randomly. Naturally you can’t present anything to support your position so there really isn’t a debate, and you have proven that.
As usual Nathan provides nothing. Typical whining bitch. You’ve been pwned again and again. Put up or shut up my bitch.
As usual Doug provides nothing. Typical resort to name calling. You’ve been pwned again and again.
I’ve provided plenty you just ignored it as usual. Or else it was above your head. Keep on denying reality all you want it just proves you are my bitch.
“Doug,
Science has not proven that life began in a puddle of goo.
Call it an aquatic environment if you like but the fact remains the planet isn’t billions of years old and life didn’t just begin randomly. Naturally you can’t present anything to support your position so there really isn’t a debate, and you have proven that.”
Ugh, Nathan, nobody in the scientific field can PROVE anything. I know from your previous posts that you took logic in college, you know exactly what “proofs” are and you know that there are no inductive proofs. Proofs only apply to deductive logic.
All we can do is hypothesize and see if our the evidence matches up with our hypothesis. We use tools like P-values and stats to figure out whether or not to reject the null hypothesis.
Right now our origin of life hypotheses are based on the fact that lipid bilayers can spontaneously occur (the basis of cell membranes) and amino acids (the basis of polymers) can be synthesized from inorganic compounds.
So, what kind of scientific basis do you have for YOUR idea of the origins of life, Nathan?
Ugh, I sure wish there were more evolutionary biologists on this blog, it would make these threads much easier.
But your comment that the earth isn’t billions of years old…well, that sort of makes this whole argument null, doesn’t it?
Because if I bring up the evidence for cyanobacteria and other prokaryotes being the origins of cellular chloroplasts and mitochondria billions of years ago, you’d just shoot me down with the “fact” that the earth is 10,000 years old, wouldn’t you?
If you would hear my evidence for single celled prokaryotes being the origins of some of our organelles, and if you would agree that a prokaryote evolving to form a eukaryote as evidence for evolution between “kinds” then we should continue.
(whatever the heck “kinds” are, and remember in an evolution thread with me before, Nathan could not pinpoint what a “kind” was, only that evolution was not possible between them. His “a dog and a wolf are both the same ‘kind’” didn’t hold up when I pointed out that evolution from a common ancestor between both of them would not produce a chihuahua and a Great Dane and a wolf, even with strong selection pressure as seen with active breeding,in the time period between the “great flood).
I mean, evidence for evolution between DOMAINS. Single celled organisms with a single chromosome and few organelles evolving into a eukaryote with organelles? That’s gotta count as evolution between two “kinds”, right?
But I’m pretty sure that you’d shut your ears with a lalalalalala rather than engage in this discussion.
“a single chromosome and few organelles evolving into a eukaryote with organelles?”
oops, i mean a single chromosome and no organelles
“But I’m pretty sure that you’d shut your ears with a lalalalalala rather than engage in this discussion.”
Gee, ya think, Tara?
I’m just going to sit back and watch. :)