Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I don't believe in the theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin. I don't believe there are any credible anthropologists who do. There are too many gaps in the fossil record to support the idea that creatures steadily evolved into other creatures. That said, I also don't believe in strict Creationism. It's absurd to believe the universe was created 6000 years ago. So I guess I'd have to see exactly what someone believed before I decided whether I'd support them with my vote or not.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Most scientists now believe that evolution of species occurred very abruptly, rather than as a steadily occurring change over a long period. The evolution of wolves into dogs is a great example. It likely occurred during a period of only about 50 years or so. That's one of the reasons why the fossil record doesn't show the gradual changes that some might expect in a drawn out evolution of species.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Most scientists now believe that evolution of species occurred very abruptly, rather than as a steadily occurring change over a long period.> Yes, I was reading an article about this recently, although I can't recall what the specific theory was called. The scientist proposing it noted that it could not be proved.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I've seen a lot of science that proves it in a number of species of plants and animals.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> They said what bothered them most about anti-evolution proponents was that they had the luxury of ignoring the evidence. << Exactly. When it comes to reconciling the discrepancies between science and religious teachings, one of them has to budge. For those that side with the church, elaborate imaginary constructs that can never be measured or verified have to be accepted whole as 'the gospel truth'. And actual scientific evidence and measurement must be discarded as irrelevant. >> However, I can believe this and still believe Man did not evolve from apes. << What's the ultimate purpose of maintaining this belief? Because you would feel diminished as an earthly life form by this association? Or is it to maintain the belief that humans alone are ordained as the 'crown of creation' - somehow separate and distinct from all other life on the planet? Or is it because that would lend validation to the overall evolution theory, thus disputing the events and timelines of creationism? Not being a very religious person, I don't understand where the actual rub is between the belief that man evolved from apes and that jesus christ died for our sins.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I've seen a lot of science that proves it in a number of species of plants and animals.> I'd like to see an example of that proof in an animal.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Oh - and to the original topic - the GOP debate. I constantly marvel that people would actually stand up and publicly espouse many of the things the candidates said. Besides the evolution question, other mall-potatoes issues such as allowing foreign-born citizens from being president (the 'arnold amendment'), to prohibiting equal protection for gays in housing and employment, being ruled by their religious faith, and complete opposition to all abortions. The contrasts between the democrats and republicans and what they value are huge. It seems like such a clear-cut choice to me that I am always amazed that so many people willingly declare themselves to be staunch republicans. Or that this GOP pitch even works with the public at all. So not only could I never vote for a candidate that refuted evolution, I could never vote for a republican - for anything. I feel it's my duty as a good citizen of these united states to stand four-square against this mindset of oppression and willful ignorance.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "I watched a great episode of Nova last week that was the first in 2-part series on the genetic origins of dogs. If the story of how dogs evolved from wolves and then branched out into all the different breeds in only a few thousand years doesn't convince someone of evolution, you might as well move on to a new subject altogether. It's amazing how we use the science behind evolution to create the perfect Fido for our home, but the same people with the prize-winning Poodle in the living room would deny evolution exists." Exactly! I've seen several specials about the domestication of dogs and verious experiments that have been done recently to domesticate wild dogs and the changes in just a few breeding cycles is amazing. So, the fact that we have hundreds of different breeds of dog from wolves in just a few thousand years is very compelling evidence. I seriously love watching NOVA, Discovery channel, Animal Planet, etc.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "There are too many gaps in the fossil record to support the idea that creatures steadily evolved into other creatures." Well, considering we've only scratched the surface, it's understandible that there would be gaps. There are some gaps that are being closed up on some species (like the dinosaur to bird link), but to expect everything to be laid out without any gaps is absurd.
Originally Posted By utahjosh >> However, I can believe this and still believe Man did not evolve from apes. << >>>>What's the ultimate purpose of maintaining this belief? <<<< Purpose? I don't know. It's just not the way I believe God created the world. I don't have proof, I don't have all the answers, but I believe Man did not evolve from a sub species of animals on earth. >>Not being a very religious person, I don't understand where the actual rub is between the belief that man evolved from apes and that Jesus Christ died for our sins.<< I don't see a big separation there, either. I still don't believe Man evolved from animals. I think it was a more sacred, more personal creation God himself did to put us here on earth.
Originally Posted By jonvn Just because there are gaps in the fossil record, which is simply going to happen because we can't have every last detail, we are still searching does not mean that you throw out everything we already do know. There is all this evidence, and it's pretty conclusive. But the argument is we don't have every last shred so we'll just go with something that has not a speck of reason behind it? Yes, that's perfectly logical...
Originally Posted By DAR I'll say this, my vote will not be based on a canidate who rejects evolution. Accepts it. Believes in intelligent design or doesn't believe in it. My vote will be based on whether he can keep me and my family members safe. If my taxes can be lowered, more important things than this.
Originally Posted By Labuda "I still don't believe Man evolved from animals. I think it was a more sacred, more personal creation God himself did to put us here on earth." So does that mean you also believe that woman was made from a rib of a man? Also, how do you reconcile dinosaurs with the story of the Bible? And, though I'm a flaming liberal, these are honest questions, Josh. I'd really l8ike to know. As for the topic, no, I could not vote for a person who flat-out denied evolution. Also, to throw a bit more into the mix - I wonder how the far right will feel about Giuliani now that he's been outed as a former donator to Planned Parenthood. (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/giuliani.abortion/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/05/08/giuliani.abortion/index.html</a>)
Originally Posted By gadzuux It's only important to what could be called the 'christian voting block' - as opposed to your garden-variety christian. Giuliani never had those folks anyway.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But the argument is we don't have every last shred so we'll just go with something that has not a speck of reason behind it?> No, that's not the argument. At least not the argument I made. I stated that whether you believe in evolution or not depends upon how evolution is defined. Darwin predicted that we'd find an abundance of "transitory species". We haven't. So Darwinian evolution has been modified to take this into effect - by proposing that species have evolved in a stair step manner, rather than constantly.
Originally Posted By cmpaley The creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 (there are TWO of them, by the way, not one and they contradict each other) are there for liturgical and theological reasons, not to explain the exact process of how God created the world. As a Catholic, I am only required to believe two things about origins: first, God created everything...somehow; second, that we did have two original parents who sinned and passed the results of that down to us (their descendents). Aside from that, how those things happened, exactly, is something that we are at liberty to disagree on. Belief in creation wouldn't necessarily make me not vote for someone because I'd have to look at the whole candidate.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I would be disinclined to vote for anyone who rejected the Theory of Evolution whole cloth, just as I would be disinclined to vote for anyone who stated that the Theory of Evolution is fact, let alone the underpinning of all biological science. I will also add I have never seen so much willful bigotry expressed on a WE board in some time.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I would have no problem voting for someone who rejects evolution. I view that as a religious issue as much as anything and I would try not to hold anyone's religious viewpoint (or lack of one) against them. Now on a practical basis, I think that a person who rejects evolution would also tend to have positions on many social issues that I would not agree with and therefore they would not have my vote. But it would not be based ONLY on their belief/disbelief in evolution.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<Now on a practical basis, I think that a person who rejects evolution would also tend to have positions on many social issues that I would not agree with and therefore they would not have my vote. But it would not be based ONLY on their belief/disbelief in evolution.>> Well said, RT.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<I will also add I have never seen so much willful bigotry expressed on a WE board in some time.>> Well no one is saying we should round up these people, restrict their rights and/or eliminate them...that would ber bigotry. How is not voting for someone based on their beliefs (which one generally can choose and control) bigotry? We're saying that we wouldn't vote for a particular person based on their beliefs. We generally vote for people to represent our morals and our needs...why would we vote for someone whose beliefs we absolutely do not agree with? Wouldn't that make every vote against "the other side" one based on bigotry?
