Scientists: Creationist President Would Doom U.S.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
And I think that those scientists who made this statement are being alarmist fools.

JM

It’s the only way that they can get any attention.

[Patroklos]

No such thing.

You might want to talk to every scientist before 1880ish, and a damn good many who are still devout members of many a religion from then to today.

Straight Evolution and straight creationsim are not the only flavors sold at this popsicle stand.

doesn't evolution advance atheism?

It doesn't have to but, depressingly, it many times is packaged that way.

[Heraclitus]

DP

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Patroklos


You might want to talk to every scientist before 1880ish

I'll get right on it

[Whoha]

Even though I accept the scientific theory of evolution, I would not have a problem with a young earth creationist as President.

[Whaleboy]

And I think that those scientists who made this statement are being alarmist fools.

Really? I would say that any political leader who is incapable of seeking out and evaluating evidence is bad news.

You might want to talk to every scientist before 1880ish, and a damn good many who are still devout members of many a religion from then to today.

I fail to see exactly how you can be a believing member of the Abrahamic religion taking as literally true the existence of God, while concurring with evolution. A creator god is utterly incompatible with natural selection.

Straight Evolution and straight creationsim are not the only flavors sold at this popsicle stand.

Indeed. Why not believe in Gaia and Chaos? The idea of evolution leaving open the possibility of god to either kick start the process or "help" along the way is crazy, partly because it's unnecessary, partly because there is no evidence for such a peculiar explanation, and partly because it begs far more questions than it solves. A half-measure is scientifically unsound.

t doesn't have to but, depressingly, it many times is packaged that way

Packaged? Evolution is a principle which by definition precludes the idea of a creator god, thus is lends itself to the statement "there can be found no evidence of a creator god".

[Patroklos]

I fail to see exactly how you can be a believing member of the Abrahamic religion taking as literally true the existence of God, while concurring with evolution. A creator god is utterly incompatible with natural selection.

Think harder. Many of the greatest minds humanity has known had no problem reconciling the concepts.

Indeed. Why not believe in Gaia and Chaos? The idea of evolution leaving open the possibility of god to either kick start the process or "help" along the way is crazy, partly because it's unnecessary, partly because there is no evidence for such a peculiar explanation, and partly because it begs far more questions than it solves. A half-measure is scientifically unsound.

I guess you are not a big fan of science or religion then.

Packaged? Evolution is a principle which by definition precludes the idea of a creator god, thus is lends itself to the statement "there can be found no evidence of a creator god".

Think harder. Your statement is entirely false, but a good example of someone assuming one based on the other for no good reason. Creationists believe the same thing btw, so you do have something in common

[PLATO]

It's not like evolutionism doesn't have its problems. While evolution within a species is well established, evolution from one species to another has not been shown...only theorized.

For evolutionist to be closed minded enough to think they have the one true answer is no different from creationist being closed minded

[Elok]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
This certainly isn't a new battle, that's for sure. It's been going on since the Scopes trial way back in, what, the 1920s?

...in which creationism was completely shot down, as it has been in just about every court case since that I've heard of (not that I've done intensive research or anything). Just a year or so ago, as the article noted, that judge in PA tore it to shreds in his opinion. It's a joke to anyone who doesn't have a hardon for doomsday predictions.

As you've said, by the time it's all said and done, we'll have had a president for eight years who's, at best, marginal toward scientific thought. The idea of another four or eight years on top of the damage Bush, et al., have done is one that doesn't bade well, IMO.

The damage he's done has been restricted to the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cells (set us back a few years, now possibly overcome by the recent breakthrough), and the usual heel-dragging on global warming. Now that the heel-dragging is beginning to end, we're pumping money into those absurd ethanol subsidies instead. To think that we could have screwed up our country's agricultural network six years sooner than we did...what a waste! Compared to nominating Brownie to FEMA or invading and botching Iraq, that's nothing. Certainly not "doom."

Now, to be fair, Huckabee apparently did try to distance himself from his earlier thoughts regarding evolution (which he doesn't believe in) after he won the GOP caucus in Iowa; I believe his new stance is something to the effect that it isn't up to the president to decide what is, or isn't, science.

Standard I-mean-it-but-you-don't-have-to-worry pap. And we really don't have to worry, since Huckabee ain't getting elected without some major event in his favor, such as a "Reverse Rapture" that drags all the nonbelievers down to hell. He won in Iowa. 49 to go, they aren't all in the Bible Belt, and even if he won the nomination he wouldn't win the presidency. Well, I suppose I shouldn't say wouldn't absolutely, since the Dems can lose anything, but as close to absolutely wouldn't as I can say.

It's not just the president, though. Sure, s/he's the most public face and has a good deal of influence, but a lot of the battles that are going on are out of the public sight, and only pop up on the radar when something big happens. For ever president out there who's against evolution, there's "X" number of people in the trenches doing the hard work of actually attempting to implement those anti-science policies at various levels of society.

Heck, we've already seen the ID/creationist forces go down to the local school board level in an attempt to bring about grassroots change. That's kind of scary, moreso if you have a child or grandchild who's being "educated" in that school district.

Gatekeeper

See my first response at the top of this post. Also, this isn't important enough for a president to start a fight and risk losing popularity over. Abortion is much more important to the religious right, and all Bush has done in eight years is sign a ban on partial-birth. The precedent against creationism is a lot more solid and long-lived than Roe v. Wade and the cases since. It's marginally more serious as a threat to science than those campaigns to remove "In God We Trust" from coins are as a threat to religion.

[Whaleboy]

Think harder. Many of the greatest minds humanity has known had no problem reconciling the concepts.

Examples + reasoning used?

I guess you are not a big fan of science or religion then.

I'm a fan of scientific method, which states that any explanation should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Why invoke God when natural selection can function fine on it's own?

Think harder. Your statement is entirely false, but a good example of someone assuming one based on the other for no good reason.

How exactly is it false?

It's not like evolutionism doesn't have its problems. While evolution within a species is well established, evolution from one species to another has not been shown...only theorized.

Not true; this is one well documented example:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito

[Elok]

Oh balls, now we've started an evolution/religion debate. Are you happy, Gatekeeper?

[Geronimo]

whaleboy, I'm sure there are people who believe an omniscient creator could 'create' through evolution by only creating the appropriate starting conditions ex-nihilo and perfectly foreseeing the finished product that would result from those conditions further down the line.

Also consider the fact that even before there was a theory of evolution people recognized that natural processes produced individual "creations" through processes like reproduction and that such indirect creation by their creator gave them no theological issues.

[Whaleboy]

For evolutionist to be closed minded enough to think they have the one true answer is no different from creationist being closed minded

No - if a creationist can refute evolution with better evidence and reasoning then I will be obliged to change my views if I consider myself to be intellectually honest.

Will it happen? I doubt it. However I am, in principle, not a believer in evolution, only I am convinced by it which is an entirely different statement.

[Whaleboy]

whaleboy, I'm sure there are people who believe an omniscient creator could 'create' through evolution by only creating the appropriate starting conditions ex-nihilo and perfectly foreseeing the finished product that would result from those conditions further down the line.

I'm sure there are, but their argument begs the question of both what being / force could create the starting conditions intentionally and how that being came about. To foresee the events, surely the cause would have to be more complex than the outcome no?

Also consider the fact that even before there was a theory of evolution people recognized that natural processes produced individual "creations" through processes like reproduction and that such indirect creation by their creator gave them no theological issues.

And then in 1859 we got ourselves a better answer

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No - if a creationist can refute evolution with better evidence and reasoning then I will be obliged to change my views if I consider myself to be intellectually honest.

Will it happen? I doubt it. However I am, in principle, not a believer in evolution, only I am convinced by it which is an entirely different statement.

Were you wrongly assuming that my statement was in support of creationism?

No.

My statement was in relation to closed mindedness.

Please explain to me how evolution has demonstrated an ability of one species to evolve into another species. Surely you can cite some evidence if it has "convinced" you. Or was the theory just so pretty that you could not resist?