Originally Posted By DlandDug >>That's my post and I'm proudly behind it. That you took the time to spotlight it as bigotry says more about you and your self-righteous view of things than anything else.<< Forgive me for finding it comical that the person who wrote and stands behind the statements, "Anyone who is that out of touch with reality shouldn't be anywhere near the White House. We've already got one of those," and "We don't need anyone in the White House who thinks he's God or plays God. We've already got one of those here, too," has accused me of being self righteous.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Enough personal attacks, people. You're all smarter (and nicer, right?) than that. Back to topic: "Would You Vote for Someone Who Rejects Evolution?" I again want to say that the phrase "rejects evolution" is not specific enough. It's pretty much impossible to ignore that we can manipulate breeds of dogs, plants, etc, to "evolve." It's one more step to say that animals have evolved from species to species throughout history. This is also hard to ignore, but I can understand that some choose not to believe this - there is no super-hard evidence that I'm aware of. Just very good theories. It's an additional step to say that Homo Sapiens came to be by evolving from other species. So what's the real topic here? Evolution and it's veracity? That's a better topic than the one posed, which is a weak question.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm not surprised the comment went over your head.> I doubt it did.
Originally Posted By Labuda Josh - thanks for your honest answers. I don't really have anything else to contribute here, but just wanted to thank you for ansewring the questions I posted. Have a great evening!
Originally Posted By jonvn "No, that's not the argument. At least n ot the argument I made." I wasn't responding to you, Doug. Gee, this thread got a lot of posts fast.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Suddenly, the word is a pejorative - "It's just some crackpot theory" - as if it can be lumped alongside other "theories" about faking the Apollo moon landing, the Loch Ness monster, or 9/11 conspiracies." Hey - Nessie is not on trial here!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan In answer to the original question, I'd need to hear more of what the candidate was all about. The way the question was thrown out there in the debates wasn't the best way to handle it -- it's a bit of a set up no matter what. If a candidate raises his hand and says he believes in evolution, it doesn't mean they are automatically without religious faith. And likewise, perhaps when a candidate said they don't believe in evolution that they might accept some of it, but feel God had more of a hand in creating life that the theory of evolution suggests. Either way, I am hoping against hope that it isn't this sort of issue that we wind up using to choose a president in 2008. With all the challenges facing us in the years ahead, there's a lot more to focus on.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I knew we could count on posts that said "evolution is a theory" and "science had lots of theories that have now been proven false", etc. These are, of course, red herrings.<< The Theory of Evolution (specifically, that one species evolved into another) is a theory, like it or not. No one here has raised the issue of theories that have been proven false. So that would be the red herring-- arguing against an argument that hasn't been raised. >>Only those who have never read about evolution, or studied it outside of trying to show why it can't be true, could use these arguments...<< Ah, poisoning the well. Any who disagree obviously do not comprehend the truth. The problem here (which has been alluded to by others) is that we haven't made it clear if we are talking about evolution or the Theory or Evolution. Evolution itself has been observed and demonstrated. On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution, which seeks to explain how many different species evolved from common ancestors, is still the subject of debate, among those who both support and reject it. I am not surprised to find that many here are quick to attack any who dare point this out. I also find it disappointing.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I'm not surprised the comment went over your head.<< It didn't go over my head. I said I found it comical. You know-- funny.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 DlandDug, the most effective way to minimize your arguement is to question your legitamacy (i.e. education, intelligence, source, etc). It should come as no surprise that your arguement is being minimized. Even if it is logical. The internet in general and WE in particular is not a good place for a logical arguement.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The Theory of Evolution (specifically, that one species evolved into another) is a theory, like it or not.<< As I already acknowledged. I also took the time to differentiate between scientific theory and the more common usage of the term. But you ignored that, perhaps because it didn't work with your response. >>So that would be the red herring-- arguing against an argument that hasn't been raised.<< Wrong again. I said quite specifically that I was responding to comments that dismissed science by saying it's been wrong before. Here was utahjosh's comment: "Science doesn't have all the answers, either. Theories have come and gone for thousands of years." So you either missed that or misinterpreted my comments. >>Ah, poisoning the well. Any who disagree obviously do not comprehend the truth.<< Ah, putting words in my mouth. Mighty ironic to comment on arguing against and argument that's never been made. I never said that those who disagree don't comprehend the truth. People of intelligence can and do disagree on any number of topics that they've read about. But it's been my experience (and this thread seems to be bearing this out) that those who argue against the Theory of Evolution are those who - as scientists themselves have noted - have the luxury of dismissing science because they know very little about it. The same arguments are usually trotted out - science said the earth was flat, etc. >>The problem here (which has been alluded to by others) is that we haven't made it clear if we are talking about evolution or the Theory or Evolution. Evolution itself has been observed and demonstrated. On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution, which seeks to explain how many different species evolved from common ancestors, is still the subject of debate, among those who both support and reject it.<< Thanks again for demonstrating my point better than I ever could have. It is the subject of debate, but not the way you want it to be. Again, as I already stated (and you again ignored) the Theory of Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community. The debate comes as new evidence unfolds and new theories develop to fill in the gaps. There is no debate about the veracity of the theory. Again, it goes back to my point about attempting to make the scales look equally balanced. They aren't. There is no other theory that scientists operate with to determine human origins. The evidence for the theory is demonstrated each time a new discovery comes along. >>I am not surprised to find that many here are quick to attack any who dare point this out. I also find it disappointing.<< What's no longer surprising (and disappointing from one so bright and intelligent--seriously) is the smug arrogance you manage to peddle in almost every post in WEs. You manage to ensure people will be talking about you with snotty comments like those above, then act shocked that people are talking about you. Of course, rather than take the repeated comments by myself and others about how you come across and change your posting style, I'm sure I can just look forward to another lecture on personal attacks and how so very boring it is to talk about ourselves. Of course, calling people bigots and acting "disappointed", like some kind of parent who feels it's their duty to police WEs, qualifies as pretty personal in my book.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Either way, I am hoping against hope that it isn't this sort of issue that we wind up using to choose a president in 2008. << It's hard to be optimistic. Just look to the `04 election - the first election after 9/11, yet the 'debate' seemed to center on vietnam, whether or not kerry spent christmas in cambodia, how long bush was in alabama, and who was more 'patriotic'. It was a ridiculous debate given the vastly more important issues at hand, and it was deftly steered into nonsense issues by GOP strategists - read: karl rove.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It was a ridiculous debate given the vastly more important issues at hand, and it was deftly steered into nonsense issues by GOP strategists - read: karl rove.<< Well said. Remember how much play gay marriage got that year? We heard about how we needed a federal Constitutional Amendment and poll after poll was taken on the topic. How much did we hear about it in 2005 after the election was over? Zero.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The Theory of Evolution (specifically, that one species evolved into another) is a theory, like it or not." Well, no, it really isn't. I'm sure you might like it to be, but it's not a theory in the general sense of the word. Evolution is basically an established fact. There are theories, however that try to explain the mechanism. But evolution itself is not questioned as anything other than fact.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Evolution itself has been observed and demonstrated>>> Yes and evolution almost always results in a lesser quality or a breakdown of what was already there, not an improvement. Many folks get evolution confused with Natural Selection, a very different thing altogether. To say that we observe evolution well evolution is about mutation, not "survival of the fittest" which is natural selection. Again I don't accept nor discredit evolution. I simply do not have the education necessary to make the decision. Now as for the statement earlier that said that evolution is widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists, and is rarely contested in scientific realms, <--- or however you worded it... You could not be more wrong. For every chemist and biologist that you bring me in favor of The Theory of Evolution, I can bring you 2 Physicists that disagree with it. In the end, who really cares? The fact is, we are here now, that much we know. Would I vote for a president that does not believe in evolution? I think most of us already have! It's not a qualifying or disqualifying issue for me. There are so many more important things to consider.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Evolution is basically an established fact. >>> Uh...lol...yeah....riiiiiight. We know that things evolve, so I guess you are correct in that. But we do not know exactly HOW we as humans came into the human condition that we are in at this point in time. So, I guess yeah in the sense of the word "evolution" we do know that things evolve, but like someone else said, "The Theory of Evolution" as it relates to US, is quite a different animal.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Yes and evolution almost always results in a lesser quality or a breakdown of what was already there, not an improvement." That's an interesting idea. And from where do you get it? "I simply do not have the education necessary to make the decision." Those that do, have. Perhaps you should consider that. "For every chemist and biologist that you bring me in favor of The Theory of Evolution, I can bring you 2 Physicists that disagree with it." Can you now? Because, if true, then those two physicists really don't know much about biological science. "In the end, who really cares?" Well, scientists care, because they are actually trying to figure out how things work for the benefit of all of us.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Again I am neither in favor of nor against The Theory of Evolution, but it is difficult to blindly accept when no one can provide any evidence whatsoever to PROVE it. The one single most telling thing for me personally are the gaps in the fossil record. For the record, I would say that creation is not at all the opposite of The Theory of Evolution. And no one has proven that yet either.
