30% of GOP Presidential Candidates do NOT believe in Evolution

C

Cypress

Well-known member
GOP Debate, on Thursday:

Three out of the ten GOP candidates stated that they do not believe in Evolution. That's 30% of them.

This crop of gentlemen are presumably among the most educated and intelligent people the GOP has to offer.

I can only conclude that among the republican base - who on average don't have the educational or intellectual qualifications of these ten gentlemen - that more than 30% of republicans DON'T believe in evolution

A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin

May 5, 2007
NY Times

Evolution has long generated bitter fights between the left and the right about whether God or science better explains the origins of life. But now a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles, not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?

On one level the debate can be seen as a polite discussion of political theory among the members of a small group of intellectuals. But the argument also exposes tensions within the Republicans’ “big tent,” as could be seen Thursday night when the party’s 10 candidates for president were asked during their first debate whether they believed in evolution. Three — Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas; Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas; and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado — indicated they did not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/u...2d3b0b5d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Click to expand...

Wow.

Vote Democratic - the Party of Science and Technology. ;)
 
Cypress said:
GOP Debate, on Thursday:

Three out of the ten GOP candidates stated that they do not believe in Evolution. That's 30% of them.

This crop of gentlemen are presumably among the most educated and intelligent people the GOP has to offer.

I can only conclude that among the republican base - who on average don't have the educational or intellectual qualifications of these ten gentlemen - that more than 30% of republicans DON'T believe in evolution



Wow.

Vote Democratic - the Party of Science and Technology. ;)
Click to expand...

Except you think life is a religious concept. You should look into the science of biology. Fetuses are living human beings. And it's not religious zealotry to think so. It's cold hard science.
 
Fetuses ? I thought this was about republicans lying about believing in evoloution to get votes ? But then 30% of republicans lie about everything.
 
I think that we've addressed these issues recently. To reiterate:

1. Evolutionary theory does not attempt to address the origins of life. It merely describes the manner in which life forms may change over time.

2. Even the Pope has decreed publicly that the Catholic Church, one of the foremost religious institutions in the world, does not perceive a conflict between evolution and creation as described in Genesis.

Each of us may have personal beliefs (or nonbeliefs) that address the origins of life, but evolution itself isn't a part of that.
 
Thorn said:
I think that we've addressed these issues recently. To reiterate:

1. Evolutionary theory does not attempt to address the origins of life. It merely describes the manner in which life forms may change over time.

2. Even the Pope has decreed publicly that the Catholic Church, one of the foremost religious institutions in the world, does not perceive a conflict between evolution and creation as described in Genesis.

Each of us may have personal beliefs (or nonbeliefs) that address the origins of life, but evolution itself isn't a part of that.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Fanatics on both sides have bought into the hype that you can't believe both.
 
Thorn said:
I think that we've addressed these issues recently. To reiterate:

1. Evolutionary theory does not attempt to address the origins of life. It merely describes the manner in which life forms may change over time.

2. Even the Pope has decreed publicly that the Catholic Church, one of the foremost religious institutions in the world, does not perceive a conflict between evolution and creation as described in Genesis.

Each of us may have personal beliefs (or nonbeliefs) that address the origins of life, but evolution itself isn't a part of that.
Click to expand...


They weren't asked about the origin of life.

They were asked if they believe in evolution. Three GOP candidates said they don't believe in evolution. There's no way to spin that into anything else.

If you don't believe in evolution, you don't belive that animals evolve into different forms and species through time. These republicans are most likely from the "Earth is only 6,000 years old" club.
 
"Vote Democratic - the Party of Science and Technology"

Except of course when BOTH science AND technology disagree with you. Then Dems start their spin machine.
 
No doubt! (I hear that story around here far, far too often). But those who reject evolution generally have confused it to include the origin of life. I expect that this is the reason for the Pope's announcement of no conflict.
 
No doubt! (I hear that 6,000 years story around here far, far too often). But those who reject evolution generally have confused it to include the origin of life. I expect that this is the reason for the Pope's announcement of no conflict.
 
Cypress said:
They weren't asked about the origin of life.

They were asked if they believe in evolution. Three GOP candidates said they don't believe in evolution. There's no way to spin that into anything else.

If you don't believe in evolution, you don't belive that animals evolve into different forms and species through time. These republicans are most likely from the "Earth is only 6,000 years old" club.
Click to expand...


Typical republicans. These guys are too stupid to realize there's an easy answer that can appeal to both sides.
 
NY Times

Evolution has long generated bitter fights between the left and the right about whether God or science better explains the origins of life.

You'd have thought that the venerable NY Times would understand Evolution a bit better than to portray it as explaining 'the origins of life'. That is abiogenesis. Evolution explains speciation....
 
Except you think life is a religious concept. You should look into the science of biology. Fetuses are living human beings. And it's not religious zealotry to think so. It's cold hard science.

What is deemed to be a human being, with the rights etc of other human beings is a matter of philosophy, not science, of reason, not empiricism.

You are attempting to present a solidness to your argument that isn't there...
 
Fanatics on both sides have bought into the hype that you can't believe both.

There are reasons why they are incompatible, but ET doesn't have a wide enough scope to claim that. The religious can fit their dogma round ET, as they did when Newton destroyed the Aristotelian world view.

Those reasons include the 'Mind First' philosophy that supports religious notions and the fact that religious concepts of origins and existence are based in that defunct Aristotelian world view.

It doesn't take a fanatic to make the case that they aren't compatible.

It takes a fanatic to claim absolute knowledge, but no good philosopher would claim that outside of a Priori analytics....
 
AssHatZombie said:
Except you think life is a religious concept. You should look into the science of biology. Fetuses are living human beings. And it's not religious zealotry to think so. It's cold hard science.
Click to expand...
Again with the lie. Biology and ethics are two distinct fields. It is not membership in the species Homo sap sap that bestows personhood but rather one's condition as a sentient individual. A (hypothetical, at this point) truly sentient artificial intelligence would be a person. Teri Schiavo was no longer a person, though she was still a member of the human species.

This is one of the most basic tactics of the anti-intellectual and reactionary: deliberate conflation of dissimilar problems in order to provoke violent emotional responses. Rabble rousing, in other words.
 
leaningright said:
Which ones are they? I may have to vote for one. ;)
Click to expand...
Letter to the editor in today's San Francisco Chronicle:
In the Republican presidential debate, some of the candidates actually admitted to believing in biological evolution. This is a great sign of progress. The party is slowly moving into the late 19th century, and should catch up to the present time by 2160.
Click to expand...
 
Yep, sounds like something from California. You know we religious folks just walk around dragging our knuckles on the ground, slowly following the rest of the world but never quite catching up. Dang I wish we'd evlove. :)
 
leaningright said:
Yep, sounds like something from California. You know we religious folks just walk around dragging our knuckles on the ground, slowly following the rest of the world but never quite catching up. Dang I wish we'd evlove. :)
Click to expand...
"evlove"?

That sounds like it might violate one of the commandments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top