Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Yahoo - Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

The Evil Genius

By The Evil Genius
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted
Hopefully basic scientific literacy of elected officials is an issue that is important to more people than you realize.

What is the least offensive way to tell good, intelligent people that they do not understand something they oppose?

I don't think evolution is as basic as you think it is.

I'd say it's fairly complex.

Not to mention that it just isn't something people deal with on a daily basis.

There's nothing wrong with telling people that you think they are wrong or that they do not understand something. Though obviously the manner of doing so could affect the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
It really isn't about evolution itself for me; it's about the age of the earth. How can I expect a politician to make an informed decision on things like global warming, nuclear half lives, oceaninc temperature and sea level, or genetics, if they deny scientific evidence in favor of unproven ideas based on personal preference?

This is kind of where I am. I don't want to step on anyone's religious beliefs, but when those beliefs cause a person in a position of power to take horrible public policy positions, then I do care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted

To me, it would be a major regression to see creationism/ID taught in schools, other than in some form of religious studies class/program (or perhaps a basic "philosophy of..." class) that would include all sorts of ideas from many religions, even including the Great Turtle, for instance (for good reason, not being sarcastic). Otherwise, teach it in homes and churches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted
It really isn't about evolution itself for me; it's about the age of the earth.

For me it's also about being honest about what you think/believe, not strategic use of dodge, deception, or falsehood to get what you want. But I know that's silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted
What does that have to do with anything though, really. Many people oppose all kinds of things most folks now think they were wrong to oppose.

That's aside from my point.

I didn't say people are right to oppose it.

I said it's complex, and there's clearly more to evolution than parents and children looking alike, or it wouldn't be so controversial.

I honestly don't see what there is to argue about there.

Sorry if I'm causing problems.

(Actually I need to go watch some shows with people, so I'll try not to post in this thread again tonight.

It keeps consuming way too much of my time editing and re-editing to make sure I'm not saying anything too stupid. lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted
That's aside from my point.

I didn't say people are right to oppose it.

I said it's complex, and there's clearly more to evolution than parents and children looking alike, or it wouldn't be so controversial.

Ah, gotcha---my dense--seemed such an obvious joke by Larry that I went the other way. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morneblade

Morneblade

Posted
Posted
To me, it would be a major regression to see creationism/ID taught in schools, other than in some form of religious studies class/program (or perhaps a basic "philosophy of..." class) that would include all sorts of ideas from many religions, even including the Great Turtle, for instance (for good reason, not being sarcastic). Otherwise, teach it in homes and churches.

Absolutely. ID nor Creationism are acutal "theories" as far as what a scientific theory is. And it bugs the hell out of me they would even be considered being taught in school. Ok, if a Catholic school want's to teach it, I suppose it's up to them, but they are doing their students a real disservice in doing so. If you have a class on religion, sure I can get on board with that, as long as it it not taught as "science". Because it is not. And quite honestly, I really dont want to vote for a politician that is that completely out of touch with basic science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted

I think that the basic idea behind evolution is not hard to understand. Yes there is a lot to it, complex stuff, etc, but the basic idea is pretty simple... Albeit the idea of design without a designer is a bit counter intuitive... In eithier case, the difficult part appears to be in reconciling evolution with some interpretations of the Bible. Gravity and chemistry can get pretty complex too but we are not seeing too many people arguing against those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkFan8

MonkFan8

Posted
Posted

I said it's complex, and there's clearly more to evolution than parents and children looking alike, or it wouldn't be so controversial.

Case in point of the problems people like Rubio cause. Evolution is not controversial. At all.

Among people who are paid to understand it, there is virtually no controversy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

Maybe deep down they're opposed to evolution because in practice the genes of the stronger and more intelligent will survive, while those who do not adapt inevitably become extinct.

That's got to be frightening, especially when so many of the deniers of science strongly root their entire being into preparing for an 'eternal reward'.

A bit ironic, all things considered.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
I think we should be honest about the reason for controversy about evolution. Complexity is not the reason.

people using it to attack religion....or just religion influencing science?

there is only conflict if you make it so

bang...it does not always improve the species...a common missconception

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted

On a serious note---this thread should be mainly about the politics of these matters, and even about candidates being honest about controversial positions v. currying/alienating voters.

It should not be yet another "evolution" or "evolution v. creationism/ID" thread.

The OP can correct me if I'm wrong.

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 06:21 PM ----------

Sorry if I'm causing problems.

(Actually I need to go watch some shows with people, so I'll try not to post in this thread again tonight.

It keeps consuming way too much of my time editing and re-editing to make sure I'm not saying anything too stupid. lol)

??? How are you causing problems---you're not. :)

As for the rest there, what are you trying to do? Disrupt the basic working premise of the forum? :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted
people using it to attack religion....or just religion influencing science?

there is only conflict if you make it so

I think there is a natural conflict between evolution and several religious ideas. These conflicts can be resolved, but only of these religious ideas give some ground. Many religious ideas have God creating humans, for example. Evolution either removes the supernatural aspect altogether or confines it somewhat.

Just saw Jumbo's comment above... Yeah so hopefully USA will soon evolve to the point where denying evolution will be political suicide. Not dogma, twa, just a normal reaction of people who have certain priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted

Back to the political side of the matter, while endorsing creationism/ID may be regarded as risky even for a GOPer, I sure think identifying oneself as an agnostic/atheist is much riskier for any person of any party, but I wonder if it's getting less or moreso.

We've "allowed" a Catholic to win, and a Mormon to compete, and a Muslim's already won :evilg: :ols: (twice now :pfft:) so I wonder.

Can a conservative just add that open endorsement of C/ID and make it--at least get as far as a POTUS nomination).

I think so.

But not an agnostic/atheist yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...