August 26, 2011
-
Voting for a Creationist
About 4 years ago, all of the Republican candidates for President were asked if they believe in creationism. I think three or four of them raised their hand that they did.
It looks like they are going to be asked the same question again. Here is the link: Link (Hopefully they will not be asked if they believe in 9% unemployment).
Would you vote for someone who did not believe in evolution?
Comments (97)
American politics are so weird. I doubt a Canadian candidate is ever asked that kind of question!
I’m more concerned about their views on evolution in the public school classroom than I am about their personal beliefs on the matter.
Can they balance the budget?
Given some of the candidates running in the Republican primary, I think one could easily make the case that evolution doesn’t exist…
Does he speak in tongues?
@NikBv - God bless America.
@NikBv - Nope. Texas has a budget shortfall of 27 billion dollars. It has a huge deficit and would be nowhere without the Blue States.
@ShimmerBodyCream - Amen to that, broseph.
Of course I would! While I don’t take the creation story literally, I DO believe in intelligent design…..so, uh…yeah.
No.
I have no problem with evolution as long as it doesn’t try to say man just came about all by himself without God creating him.Talk about blind faith,thats just sheer stupidity.I would come more to voting for a person who believes in creation for the simple reason is not for anything else for the common sense.
I agree with @QuantumStorm, there are bigger issues to deal with besides whether a candidate believes in evolution or not. Also, I see no big deal with having a president whom doesn’t believe in evolution as long as they are respectful with their opinion. That’s their own personal believe and as long as they don’t try forcing or preaching that opinion on others and don’t try hindering or limiting scientific studies, than it’s just a harmless opinion.
Nope, not a chance.
Of course not…ugh just the thought makes me tremble.
Hmm, probably not. It depends on the candidate, I’m writing in Christopher Walken in 2012 and I’m not sure his stance on evolution.
I’m voting for Rick Peary.
It depends on their other beliefs. If they want to tell me the Universe is only 4,000 years old but legalize marijuana, gay marriage, reduce the size of the government, and create a “Libertarian” party then yes I would vote for that man.
I guess my point is that this shouldn’t be a deciding factor.
I want the President to believe in across the board tax cuts. Zero corporate taxes, zero taxes on dividends, a HUGE reduction in regulations (I’d lick his boots if he promised to do away with the EPA), a stable dollar, a balance budget and about $3 trillion in spending cuts right off the bat with more to come.
I wouldn’t care if the candidate were atheist or believed in Earth goddess Marilyn Monroe.
I’ll vote for the cookie monsterO.o
I don’t care what you believe so long as you and the rest of America believe you are doing what’s best for the country.
Personally, I think government and spirituality should be kept separate. I’ve met so-called Christians who were actually pretty nasty people and I’ve met Atheists who were really awesome people so I guess I could care less about a person’s religious affiliation, more important is what they do. At this point I see the economy as a small factor in a big problem. I don’t care how they think as long as they do something worthwhile. These politicians, they make booku bucks and what have they done to improve anything? It’s a bunch of BS. Been that way for a long time and only getting worse.
Whether they believe in creation or evolution, it doesn’t affect my vote either way.
If they are a creationist person, we probably differ in many other thoughts, so I would not vote for them in all likely hood. I really think Republicans, bringing in their social views and religion and making it a huge part of their campaign is stupid. I would look a lot closer at these candidates if they were not so extreem in some of their views ( social).
With unemployment still over nine percent, economic growth not able to keep up with population growth, a vastly increased federal debt and the ticking time bomb of Social Security, I really think that the origin of the universe is the most pressing issue of the day. That and how some candidates can be made to look ridiculous when eating a corn dog.
(Pff! Reality-based community my foot.)
@momofjenmatt - It is the mainstream media, the mouthpiece of the Democrat Party that makes a big deal out of GOP candidates’ religious affiliations. And liberals and ignorant inbred red necks are the only ones that make an issue of it.
The rest of America wants competence, honesty and policies that work. In other words, everything Barry O’Bama is not.
Absolutely, but I would be afraid to have a religious extremist of any sort (or extreme atheist) running the country.
Yes, if they were actually honest(which isn’t going to happen, unfortunately).
I’m tempted to vote for Mr. Mayhem, from the Allstate commercials. At least, I’d know what to expect.
Dan, I’ve thought about this all night. If I say no, I wouldn’t vote for someone who favors a fundamentalist view of creation over evolution, I could be accused of not valuing the other aspects of that person. I also think that if someone takes a literal view of Genesis they likely have other views that I disagree with as well in a basic metaphysical and epistemological way.
What a person believes about the world around them is usually not a problem with me, I figure they’ve just come to different conclusions about life and I can respect that, but there is a point where their beliefs get so unsupportable that I wonder how they’d actually be able to make sound decisions on matters that would affect their candidacy and their ability to perform their office.
So my answer is that it would put up a major red flag and would require investigation as to their motives for making decisions that affect people of differing opinions. Most likely I would find that I don’t agree with much of anything they have to say.
If they didn’t believe in evolution but were still okay with keeping it in science class and keeping creationism out, or in a world religions class instead, I’d be okay with.
However, if they don’t believe in evolution chances are pretty good they fall into a more conservative camp and therefore we don’t agree on a lot of other issues as well, so I would end up liking the other candidate better
Probably, but it would depend on the candidate’s other opinions and plans.
Maybe. Everyone has something against them in my book. Is he going to be teaching the kids himself? Who will be deciding what should be in the textbooks? Will the Federal gov’t tell the States what they need to teach? How much science must we teach (and know) in order for our students to succeed in the global job market? How much time and resources will be devoted to teaching evolution?
Those seem like more interesting questions to be asking a presidential candidate.
If they were evolution deniers, hell no. But if they conceded that while it does not match their beliefs, it is entirely possible and should be taught in science class (evolution) and creationism should be taught in church, then yes, said person would deserve my vote.
HAHAHAHA
The picture reminds me of Bill from True blood
It really doesn’t matter to me, I would never vote republican.
Probably not.
“A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important
in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science
policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on
other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics,
their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that
a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem,
is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This
is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is
genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all.
Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he
who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which
likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite
backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the
stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the
existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we
now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot
be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of
today.”
- Richard Dawkins
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - yeah. fuck the poor.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - Here’s a LINK to some stats that compare Reagan’s supply side fix of the mess he inherited from Jimmy Carter to O’Bama’s single handed destruction of the global economy.
The best thing for everyone is a booming economy.
@GodlessLiberal - Believing in the atheist version of evolution is not superior to creationism. That’s the fatal flaw of Dawkin’s agrument.
It is an agrument from arrogance.
You folks cannot prove that belief in creationism has any connection with the ability to administer the government.
In fact, by your logic O’bama’s brutal incompetence is proof that belief in evolution ruins the ability to administer the government.
As usual, the atheist demands a standard for others, that he, himself cannot meet.
Their personal beliefs in creationism don’t matter. Their views on education, economics, foreign policy, the environment, and social programs do.
Absolutely. It shows they believe in truth and not some ridiculous fairytale Darwin made up.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - like i said. fuck the poor.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - The poor did great under Reagan!
The poor are doing so badly under O’Bama that he won’t even go talk to them. His own people are wondering WTF.
Instead of filling your mind with senseless cliches and meaningless bumper sticker phrases, follow the link I provided and take a look for yourself.
At this same time (3 years) in Reagan’s administration the economy was growing at 5%. The O’Bama economy is barely doing 1%.
Because O’Bama allowed the Fed to print money the dollar has lost purchasing power and caused inflation to boot. That’s killing consumers and international trade. Reagan stabilized the value of the dollar.
These things affect everyone especially the poor.
I’d rather not vote for someone who does believe in evolution, but as others have pointed out: the budget is just a tad more important at the moment.
Noooo.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - you are fucking awful at economics.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - Sorry, but the best minds in economics are supply siders. I learned from them. Since suppy-side economics has been proven to work and Obamanomics fails everytime it’s tried you are in error.
The facts of reality do not match your hallucination.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - “the best minds in economics are supply siders.”
only in america…
@twotothefightingeighthpower - America is the world’s 800 pound gorilla even after the torture and beating O’Bama has given it.
Also, economics is applied mathematics so nationality is irrelevant.
Sure, why not? let’s all pick our next President based on our personal religious beliefs (or nonreligious beliefs), rather than whether the candidate will do anything about our massive debt and spending problems that if unchecked will surely lead our nation to destruction.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - yes. and outside america, the mathematics add up, and we don’t trickle down.
only in a partisan nation where people like you buy into an ideology and refuse to engage with the mathematics do you get reaganomics.
margaret thatcher tried that out over here. it destroyed industry and caused enormous social divisions.
you are frankly an idiot if you believe that giving more money to the rich and powerful is a good way of ensuring a strong and durable economy. there is a reason that democratic governments inherent failing treasuries.
this is the last time i’m going to respond to your comments. you and your ilk are an exasperating breed.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - The entire West is dependent on American largess. Did you know that the US Federal Reserve funneled $1.2 Trillion into European, Canadian and US banks without anyone knowing? You people don’t have to pay for your defense or your drugs because the US is footing the bill.
Then entire West is collapsing because of debt. It could have gone on for years but O’Bama broke the piggy bank.
Your type of economics always leads to bankruptcy and ruin. All your wealth is from other people’s money.
For beggars that’s the best economics in the world.
Meanwhile we Americans have to get busy working so you folks can live the high life.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - ” Did you know that the US Federal Reserve funneled $1.2 Trillion into European, Canadian and US banks without anyone knowing?”
that is the stupidest question anyone has ever asked me.
we live in a global economy. europe is as dependent on the american economy as it is on the french, greek, italian and german economies. you fucking myopic prick.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - I’m sorry but giving money earned by hard working Americans to a bunch of lazy Europeans and Canadians without us knowing about it is stealing. Cash transfers from workers to lazy asses is how Europe works, not the global economy.
America was founded to so we wouldn’t have to be part of European ingrained stupidity anymore.
And here O’Bama is funding it behind out backs.
Of course I’d vote for someone who doesn’t believe in evolution exactly the way it is presented by the ‘scientists.’ I also believe in God created the universe so it seems we’d have something in common from the start.
Although I think if there is to be the ‘separation of church & state’ as everyone proclaims, then those kinds of questions should be OFF LIMITS. Political concepts & ideas are what should be asked. The only other questions should be to illustrate the candidates integrity – will they do the job to serve their personal interests or the interests of the people?
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - hard working americans?
what have you been doing all day on a weekday?
your inaccurate economics and arrogant superiority complex are offensive.
you are a cunt.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - When the insults come, I know I’ve won.
Goodbye. Fairwell.
I don’t care if the candidate believes in the flying spaggetti monster as long as he is a good leader and understand the boundry between personal beliefs and policy. Look at Dr. Ron Paul, a devoted Christian that does not mix politics with religion. I may not be a big fan of Mitt Romney but I think it’s insanely stupid that people will not vote for him just because he’s a Mormon. I will give Mitt credit for one thing, he does not throw his religion around and I like that, plus he understand what compromise means. I just pray Perry and Baughman do not run the country, they are way too extreme on the right for my taste.
i don’t care about the evolution/creation belief of a politician. i care about their stand on abortion. whatever else they believe or don’t believe is inconsequential. what makes me not happy is that religious beliefs to most politicians are used as a manipulation tool to get votes. really, if we had a TRUE christian president things would be drastically different in this country. just because they go to church means NOTHING.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - calling europeans lazy, that’s not an insult at all, is it?
you couldn’t win a condom from a condom dispenser.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - You can’t insult people who live off the hard work of others. You, on the other hand have abusive, sexist and sadistic.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - i have a job. i pay 50% tax on the vast majority of my salary.
instead of fannying about on xanga spouting nonsense facts and quoting irrelevant links to back up my ill-informed viewpoints during working hours on a weekday.
p.s. we are five/six hours ahead of you before you come back with another ill-informed retort.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - Only suckers pay 50% of their income in taxes.
Being a professional idiot explains your sour attitude.
I would vote for an atheist if I felt that they knew what they were talking about, they were respectful of the beliefs of Christians. For instance, I wouldn’t want to vote for someone who REFUSED to say (when tragedy hit) “We send all of our hopes and prayers to that place,” etc… If they are soooo anti-God that they couldn’t even say such a thing, or say, “God bless America” or had a problem with the “flag” or “the Pledge” because it says “one nation under God…” I would have a hard time voting for them.
I am more about someone who is about “freedom” not forcing someone to believe the way that they are…
For instance, I would REALLY vote for an atheist who (despite their personal beliefs) was okay seeing PRAYER in school again.
Or wouldn’t have a problem going on TBN to talk with those people for a Christmas special, etc. As long as we all understand where HE stands, and he/she respects everyone else’s beliefs. 
I really don’t give a damn how a person believes the world came to be, or how we got here. None of us were there, and it really doesn’t make a difference. What matters is what we do now. Whether he believes in evolution or not is a moot point to me. What matters to me is what he will do once he’s president. If he personally doesn’t believe in evolution, but doesn’t try to legislate if it should be taught in school or not, it doesn’t matter. Livin_All_I_Do pretty much sums up what I believe, even though I might care about different issues.
)
And I guess I don’t see why we care so much about a candidate’s religious beliefs. (Even though I would LOVE to see a Pagan candidate! But I wouldn’t vote for them just because they’re Pagan. After all, I’m Pagan, and I’d make a horrible president!
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - you’re right. my support of the fact that my tax money pays for social welfare is really sour.
in contrast, your desire for the wealthy to hoard their money and your resentment towards social welfare policies, that’s very beneficent.
you’re exactly like jesus.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - Rich trillionaires like Warren Buffet and crooked politicians like Barry O’Bama depend on dummies like you to finance their limos, and vacation cottages.
They just borrow the money needed to pay for social programs.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - are you embarrassed? i’d be embarrassed.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - Why should I be embarrassed because the rich and corrupt have you in their back pocket?
Separation between Church and State.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - This is the most sterile debate you have engaged yourself in, he/she/it is as bright as a peanut, don’t even bother answering to her/him/it. You are way to brilliant to be wasting your time like this.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - hero of the day!
yep.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - “economics is applied mathematics”
*facepalm*
Economics is the measure of supply and demand dynamics, trade systems, money and money supply, etc. It draws from a wide variety of humanities fields, and has overlap with psychology, sociology, etc.
Statistics is applied mathematics.
“So nationality is irrelevant”
This is also arguable. Though the math portions of economics are universal (IE no matter where you come from, if strategy A meets
@FireMapleSong - You’ve obviously never studied economics at the university level.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - “You’ve obviously never studied economics at the university level.”
An excellent refutation of my statement. You’ve obviosly never participated in academic discourse, so allow me to clue you in – if some one says something you don’t agree with, disproving the statement is the best way to make your point.
BTW, it seems all of my comment wasn’t posted. So I’m going to finish it and you’ll have to listen. What I basically wanted to say for the second statement was that models of efficiency are universal, but models put into practice that do not take cultural norms into account run the risk of making poor predictions (for example, in authority bound japanese culture an investment in guns for the police force is a waste of money, while the medical bills from injury alone would make an investment in heavy armament for american police officers a wise investment).
@FireMapleSong - Economics is applied mathematics. PERIOD.
You are in error so there is no further need to continue.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - And once again, I am telling you, Applied Mathematics is an aspect of economics, not the whole thing. Saying economics is applied mathematics is like saying a human body is an arm.
@FireMapleSong - I’m sorry but what you are saying is dead wrong.
If you can’t express economic principles mathematically you’re no longer doing economics.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Now you’ve changed what you’re saying – now, you’re saying “human bodies have arms”. When you say “economics IS applied mathematics”, you are saying “human bodies are arms”. The majority of economics is research that often is not quantitative – what makes economics a science and not just “monetary statistics” is figuring out what numbers are important, figuring out whether certain statistics are causes, effects, or correlations, and interpreting the numbers so that they mean something. This is all non-mathematical, very empirically-driven research.
However, certain things, particularly market-efficiency models, only need to be described in mathmatical modeling, but this is just a small aspect of economics. Saying that this is all economics is demonstrates a very narrow understanding of the field.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - No, they don’t. Their arguments are far more simplistic.
Engineering and economics are very different. People are not little atoms that behave according to some law of physics. The problem is the disconnect between what IS most efficient/sound and how uncontrolled beings behaved.
Your belief that humans should respond to economic policy the way an electrical circuit responds to power moving through it is the same belief Soviet policy makers had and is highly debunked. People do not always make purely rational decisions, so modeling under the assumption that people will is poor modeling.
The models still make sense, but they’re all theoretical. Economics tries to continually adjust the models to empirical studies of actual human behavior. It is a science.
EDIT: besides, you haven’t addressed the fact that economists do more than model numbers – they interpret them.
A more important question would be “Do you subscribe to Ayn Rand’s principles of morality?” After response: “How does that make you feel about the constantly rising bar of entry to barely survivable living, irrespective of business taxes and improving efficiencies in every sector, by one’s own accomplishments?”
@jasonwl - The two aren’t necessarily unrelated. The irony of Ayn Rand’s system of morality (ethical egoism) is that, when taken to it’s logical conclusion, the business interests that promote “laissez faire” should continue stealing from the public trust and the poor should continue rallying to tax and redistribute wealth. Ethical egoism is full of paradoxes like that, and her embrace of it pretty much ends up negating other aspects of her philosophy (for example, it negates her individualism, for if everyone was truly an ethical egoist, to be successful one must behave like an anti-individual, always behaving the way one thinks some one else expects them to behave in order to curry favor and accumulate wealth – in other words, the only real “individualist” would be such a disgusting collectivist that Marxists would cringe).
@FireMapleSong - I paired the questions under the assumption that the two are related. I am an individualist to the extent I would thoroughly enjoy supplying my own basic needs. I may be a collectivist to the extent that I would give away parts of my free time to help someone solve a problem that relates to my interests. If someone were to profit from my help and I not from theirs, if required outside of my normal free time, or if it costs me to travel for them, then I might charge for my time/travel.
I also have a certain fear (paranoia? possibly) of complete deregulation. 1) An apparently corrupt corporation already controls crop seeds. 2) Few communications/data service providers are consolidating and charging more for less. 3) An oil company with a poor track record wants to run pipelines underneath clean water reservoirs from the north to the south border of the United States and probably to sell, while so far denying it, to foreign markets. 4) Potential evidence of earthquakes caused by fracking. 5) Below livable wage labor in the cheapest labor markets. 6) River so polluted that it caught fire (twice I think). Many more examples could be listed after some research.
@jasonwl - I think the traditional dichotomy between individualist and collectivist is a false one and results in lots of unproductive word games. But thank you for clarifying – I wasn’t certain from your post if you indeed realized the two were connected.
I think the concept of regulation versus deregulation is a smoke and mirrors game. The question really should be “are things being done in the spirit of the greater good or are they not?”. For example, we have a government bureau that concerns itself with the food and medical industry – the FDA. Additionally, we have a government body designed to develop agriculture policy – the Department of Agriculture. You could say that agriculture, then, is a regulated industry. And yet, as you have pointed out, an apparently corrupt corporation already controls crop seeds (worldwide, too – not just in the US). So the question is, are the regulations failing (throwing out regulation would be better) or is it a failure to regulate (we need tighter regulations). I think it’s neither. I believe the question gets back to one of copyright law in this instance – the regulations are irrelevant, it’s the fact that the government grants Monsanto a monopoly over plant genetic information that causes this stuff to happen.
In most debates over “regulation”, you can find a tertiary government policy that, if altered, would make the whole debate moot anyway.
it would hurt their chances of me voting for them but I would have to also consider the other issues.
@QuantumStorm - Agreed. The president can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, worship Zeus, or sacrifice babies so long as he doesn’t force anybody to believe in the same way or convert the government into a theocracy of any kind.
The reason a Republican candidate not believing in Evolution might worry me is that Republicans have a tendency to insert such beliefs into the government and the school systems.
I try not to be the type of person who wouldn’t vote for someone because of one thing…especially when that one thing is not entirely relevant to how they’d actually lead. BUT STILL…that’s so painful if they deny evolution. Like, HOW? I don’t understand.
Sure, it honestly doesn’t matter to me.
sure, assuming the guy’s a flaming liberal hippie in all other areas…?
@FireMapleSong - Environmental regulation at least has resulted in much less damaging pollution. I suspect regulation is effectively controlled by the largest companies in each industry through gaming the political system and having executive members on the regulatory boards. It seems like smoke and mirrors except that an apparent effect is that they cannot fail while potentially competing startups can’t even afford to get two feet on the ground without VC funding (and I think the requirements for that are above and beyond being definitely profitable).
I should look further into Ayn Rand’s principles to see whether there really is something left to debate. Though the world would work just fine without transaction based economics, probably with substantially better potential than possible with transaction only based economics. Though only if the majority of people understand how that would work before they transition to it.
Yes.
TOTAL BULLSHIT! Even Steven Hawkins admitted that this is it. Enjoy it while you are here.
@jasonwl - I agree. I think the shift to post-scarcity society has to be cultural, not political.
Cheap Oakley Sunglasses
Discount Oakley Sunglasses
Cheap Oakleys
Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses
Oakley Half Jacket Xlj
Oakley Jawbone Sunglasses
Oakley Oil Rig Sunglasses
Oakley Radar Sunglasses
Oakley Sport Sunglasses
Asian Fit Oakley
Oakley Polarized Sunglasses
YY6LRK10T0OT
It would depend on their views in every other aspect of their candidacy. And the only thing important about their creation views is how they would utilize it. If they want to eliminate evolution from being taught in schools, then would I in no way vote for them. If they were not dealing with that in any way, it wouldn’t matter.