 |
We currently have a President who ignored intelligence advice to pursue wars based on ideology. What happens if we have a President who believes science is a fraud (which is essentially what a creationist does by rejecting evolution). What will he do if a science-related crisis occurs? Does he listen to the science experts or his creationist ministers?
US doomed if creationist president elected: scientists
A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.
“The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming,” University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
“I would worry that a president who didn’t believe in the evolution arguments wouldn’t believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin,” added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of “Science, Evolution and Creationism.”
“We don’t teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine,” said Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine.
On a related note: The Christian Science textbook.
#16 Bill “Get OUT NOW! while you still can!”
I have… đ
If the next president is a creationist therefore a more than sundry religious person the US will be on the path to becoming the Christian version of Iran…the only difference is this Christian US “Iran” has the largest military in the world!
With countries already having doubts about using and supporting the USD the US becoming a Christian “Iran” will cause even more worry.
If the UN has no problem with sanctions against Iran over nuclear / religion mix do we see the same for the US in the future?
World peace would be threatened by a religious Christian US president wanting to take care of the infidels in the middle east “The Crusades Re-Loaded”. Would Israel be included as well? All the saved baptists I ever knew believe that the Jews killed Jesus.
Well lets hope that ‘Huckleberry’ and others like him doesn’t get very far.
Cheers
@29 – Thought that this quote might help…
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being… All variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, Whom I call the Lord God.”
– Newton
… and still no mention of that accursed teapot…
Ah yes. The personal subjective judgment of an individual who lived centuries ago.
He was a smart guy. Therefore, every single thing he uttered was totally correct and without error.
Who could ask for better proof? đ
rectagon said, on January 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm Letâs see. Newton-creationist. Pascal-creationist. Yep, weâre screwed.”
Well done…Listing scientists without putting them in historical context.
Blaise Pascal {Born 1623, Died 1662}
Isaac Newton {Born 1643, Died 1727}
Charles Darwin {Born 1809, Died 1892}
In other words both Newton & Pascal couldn’t have been anything else but creationists because there was no alternative in their day. No evidence for any other explanation of our origin had then been found. Now there is such evidence. In abundance.
Another thing you might consider. Both newton & pascal were deeply committed to the scientific method – not to dogma above all else. That being so if they had lived today both men would have taken a look at the evidence and become firm holders of the evolutionary theory.
What excuse do modern day creationists have for their continued denial of the evidence…Hmmm?
#9 – pmitchel,
Please check your history books again. The founding fathers were deists. This is about as close to atheists as they could have been in the days before any understanding of evolution.
#14 – Catberos,
LOL!!
#18 – GF
I think the day that a scientist is not skeptical of any theory no matter how much proof they have is when science is doomed. All one can REALLY say is that evolution is more probable than creationism. Thatâs it.
Um, not really. All one can really say is that evolution is a fact based on an abundance of evidence. Natural selection is a theory that based on another abundance of evidence appears to be an excellent explanation of the mechanism for evolution. And, creation has not a shred of evidence of any kind to support it and is about as likely to be correct as the Great Pumpkin.
#21 – Jon,
For all we know, all that we observe, and each and everyone of us, is simply a cruel 1000 year old Grand Simulation run in some ârealâ universe we canât directly observe.
Except for the minor detail that there is no evidence of this, you’re correct. So, if you choose to believe that for which there is no evidence, I don’t care where you’ve worked, you’re no scientist. You’ve forgotten the meaning of the word.
Certainly one needs to be skeptical. However, one must go with what is observable. What else is there? One need not allow for the possibility of every hypothesis in the world to be a proper skeptic. I’d suggest the Great Pumpkin to you as well, as an example of an hypothesis with no data to support it. Do you allow for the possibility? Really and truly and not just for sake of argument? I hope not.
#26, 27 – Catberos (again)
Nice rant!! And, very well said too.
#33 – bobbo,
Re: Flip-flopping with the will of the people.
What about issues that really are technical? What about issues that the majority really don’t understand? What about protection of minority rights from being steamrolled over by the majority?
I think a pres that just does whatever the majority wants would quickly turn this country into the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of the Christian States of America. This would be the will of the people, just as it is the will of the people in Iran to have a theocracy with a different flavor of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion (singular as always for me).
I, for one, would like to see our government with more representation of minority viewpoints, at least for ensuring that the minority viewpoint is not aggressively and violently stamped out.
BTW, anyone else find that bust of W insulting to earlier hominids?
What did you do with the real Three head? Almost all of your posts made sense.
Now, the danger of a creationist in the White House, I don’t agree with. I was raised in an evangelical and fundamentalist religion. They are too fragmented to do any such harm. For crying out loud, I listened in on 45 minutes of arguing about the proper use of “Holy” and what was blasphemous. Enough such stupidity and a recognition that the founders of the different religions sounded an awful lot like assorted loons I’d had to deal with convinced me that all religions were symptoms of varying degrees and types of insanity, and proving a religious belief system to be insane only increased the mental turmoil of the person who held the belief, and made him more susceptible to sillier beliefs , so arguing was worse than a waste of time.
No, the days of a monolithic Christianity vanished back before 1600. There is no such danger, unless some truly charismatic scoundrel rises, and I doubt even then. Since about 1800, dissenters have been too free to walk down the street and start their own church.
#38–Scott. You say:
#33 – bobbo,
Re: Flip-flopping with the will of the people.
What about issues that really are technical? // Get the advice of technicians. A person can only be really competent in 1-2 technical areas. Pres Carter was pimped as a Nuclear Engineer. Didn’t help much in that 444 day standoff with Iran.
What about issues that the majority really donât understand? /// Like what? A bit conclusionary in your concern? Why not let the majority be wrong and learn from it?
What about protection of minority rights from being steamrolled over by the majority? /// I didn’t say get rid of the supreme court and constitution.
I think a pres that just does whatever the majority wants would quickly turn this country into the Democratic Peoplesâ Republic of the Christian States of America. /// Again, the Pres is only one of three branches of government AND I don’t think any one sect of religion in America would form the nucleus of a religious majority. The Pres does take an oath to obey the laws of Congress and the Constitution. Easy to lose sight of that after 7 years of Bushco.
I, for one, would like to see our government with more representation of minority viewpoints, at least for ensuring that the minority viewpoint is not aggressively and violently stamped out. /// Why? sorta does violence to the whole notion of what a minority view is and to the general democratic wisdom of majority control?
What minority viewpoint(s) need more support in the GOUSA?
#37, Christopher, I think that the majority of the “creationists” have simply never been given a coherent explanation of evolution due to the old Marxist influence on the US educational system. An influence that is thankfully vanishing. The Marxists (of whatever sub-denomination) did not like “inherited traits”, wanting to believe that acquired traits could be passed on to offspring.
That left room for an explanation that “made sense” to the ignorant.
BTW, the strongest believers in creationism live in the old Democratic Party strongholds out in flyover country and people who have migrated out of those area. đ
What I find scary isn ‘t a president who rejects science, or the prospect of such a man during a ‘science crisis,’ but the prospect of handing over control to all these scientists.
The Communists weren’t too happy with people believing in a power higher than their own.
Bush is a creationist president. Look how well that turned out.
#43–Mike, what a joke. You are that afraid of “science” and have made or recognized the boogeyman?
Har, Har. Shows the religious non-think that could ensue from electing a creationist. Electing a non-creationist does not mean electing a scientist, nor in turning control over to scientists.
Thank you for demonstrating the harm involved.
# 38 Misanthropic Scott
Um, yes really. When you use the phrase, appears to be, it weakens your argument. A fact is. Natural Selection vs. Genetic Drift does not bode well for your argument either. Which is certain? Also, how does this explain the creation of life? I don’t see anyone creating any life forms from scratch let alone humans, not that this may one day happen. But to act as if the theory of evolution has these answers wrapped up in a tiny little bow is naive. It’s too bad that you need the crutch of an obtuse argument, with which you cannot convince the common man, who is supposedly less enlightened than you, for you to feel superior.
As far as the original red herring question is concerned…
Joe Biden, Roman Catholic
Hillary Clinton, Methodist
John Edwards, Methodist
Barack Obama, United Church of Christ
Bill Richardson, Roman Catholic
Mike Gravel, Unitarian
Dennis Kucinich, Roman Catholic
Christopher Dodd, Roman Catholic
Rudolph Giuliani, Roman Catholic
John McCain, Episcopalian
Mitt Romney, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)
Tommy Thompson, Roman Catholic
Ron Paul, Baptist
Tom Tancredo, Presbyterian
Mike Huckabee, Southern Baptist
Sam Brownback, Roman Catholic
Duncan Hunter, Baptist
Jim Gilmore, Methodist
Fred Thompson, Church of Christ
So, which one is not a creationist?
#44 MikeN The Communists werenât too happy with people believing in a power higher than their own.
To which ‘communists’ do you refer? Communism as per Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto’ or some perversion of it? Sort of like flourishing the word “Democracy” without out any real meaning.
The US founding fathers seemed rather clear that religion and State must be separate so they weren’t too happy either “with people believing in a power other than their own.”
Kind of makes you statement nonsensical… đ
Cheers
#47 GF “So, which one is not a creationist?”
The one not ‘rabid’ about it. đ
Cheers
As a common man here, I know very well I’m just a blind bit of protein sitting inside a marvelous mechanism. But c’mon guys !! I’m not getting any younger and having to read all these friggin’ lengthy dissertations on who-shot-who and what-fk’d-what just so some guys with fantastic iq’s can prove their mettle.. I mean REALLY..couldn’t you have said all that stuff without writing a fuk’n book ?? THC never gave me a headache before..
That said, I’m siding with Jon (#21)up there…I ain’t sure I’m waking up tommorrow and I’m dammed sure you can’t prove I will.
#42 – Phillep
“#37, Christopher, I think that the majority of the âcreationistsâ have simply never been given a coherent explanation of evolution due to the old Marxist influence on the US educational system. An influence that is thankfully vanishing. The Marxists (of whatever sub-denomination) did not like âinherited traitsâ, wanting to believe that acquired traits could be passed on to offspring.
That left room for an explanation that âmade senseâ to the ignorant.”
YESSS! YOU are correct, sir!
PC’s – which is to say, Marxists’ – constant war on science that doesn’t support their faux-egalitarian premise has done this thing.
And into the vacuum of ignorance left behind sweeps the explanation most appealing to the lowest common denominator. And of course, more students, afraid of the controversy, avoid fields like genetics and sociobiology, so those vital fields are being starved of badly needed new blood.
And don’t expect it to improve, when the media continues to censor science just so that fragile feelings don’t get hurt. Minority self-esteem is more important than truth.
Remember:
“It is better to feel good than to think good.”
~ Fernando
Huckabee is the oddest viable Presidential Candidate ever. The Left is called him Right Wing, and the Right is calling him Left Wing. All I know is that he’s a kook and a dangerous man.
#52 âIt is better to feel good than to think good.â
T-H-C….. I remember well the Doctrine of Shallowness” as first expounded by Fernando. The manifesto itself was short, but there were a lot of pictures đ
To Quote Darwin himself, “Yes”.
I think the same for voting in a president who is out of touch with the 21 century so no old (minded) people.
What I like about Ron Paul is he is focused on the Constitution and will stay within his jurisdiction as president. It would be great if we had men like this in every political office. Also, that he sees each person as having the same rights endowed to us by our âCreatorâ (Declaration of Independence). I am a devout believer in Jesus Christ, I am a creationist though I have also studied evolution. Cool though, that we have this in common. We both want freedom, a president that obeys the Constitution and sees each of us as equal in the eyes of the law of this land and of God. We may not agree in our beliefs but, we should stand shoulder to shoulder as Americans. RON PAUL 2008!!
What do you mean “IF” – IT ALREADY HAPPENED !!! And Dumbya is doing his damnedest TO DESTROY AMEIRCA, selling it out to the HIGHEST BIDDER, all the while IGNORING ALL SCIENTIFIC ADVISE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND STEM CELL RESEARCH !!!
Not to mention SHREDDING THE CONSTITUTION AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY !!!
AMERICA, R.I.P. !!!