and it might give you some insight into the person. It certainly tubed Huckabee who I thought up to then was an excellent and well-spoken candidate. Now, whether it is relevant at all to anything that a President might have anything to do with, is a different question. And the answer to that question is No. But ask away. Briefs or boxers, did you have sex with that woman, evolution, favorite comic book character...anything is acceptable.
I'd be interested in knowing how many POTUS candidates really deny evolution rather than just skirting around the question to avoid upsetting idiots in their base.
If we're going to compete with China and the rest of the developed world, especially with regard to bio-technology, it's important that educate our children by teaching them established science.
The president has significant authority when it comes to education and his or her willingness to be ignorant on stuff like this is a deal-breaker for this voter.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
education. With that funding the Feds have a great influence on what is taught and the way it is taught. The President's views on education are very significant.
The other thing is whether he is honest enough to answer a tough question honestly, especially if he is campaigning in Kansas.
supposed to have duck sniper fire so I don't know njm is referring too. However, regarding the question "is he dim" I would like to point out that he is from NJ so you kind of should excuse stuff like that from him. He can't help it
should have read njm instead if not, but you knew that
No, I don't believe that, nor is that in the spirit of why I asked the question. It has long puzzled me that someone can sell out completely to one viewpoint or another. We all know that no one viewpoint has all, or even most, of the answers to anything.
We all have our basic beliefs, and all lean in a certain direction, but to blithely accept one viewpoint seems to me to be stultifying and, ultimately, anti-intellectual. It truly puzzles me.
Absolutely. If a candidate says they don't believe in evolution
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Not really following that logic. There are quite clearly people with at least somewhat realistic Presidential aspirations who do not believe in evolution. And I think it's important for them to acknowledge and explain such beliefs so voters can fully understand their position. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that such potential candidates do not similarly believe in Santa Claus. If I thought some might, I'd probably want that put to them to get it on the record as well.
The real reason HH wants to ask that question is to trap any Republican candidate. There is really no safe answer for him/her. Answer yes, and they alienate some of their base. Answer no, and they are of course a nut.
The real reason HH wants to ask that question is to trap any Republican candidate. There is really no safe answer for him/her. Answer yes, and they alienate some of their base. Answer no, and they are of course a nut.
Other than that -- ask away!
Yes but the moronic evolution denying base is still going to vote for the republican candidate 100% of the time, with zero exception. I think a better presidential test would be to have the candidates explain what evolution is. If someone can give a generally accurate description and then explain why they think this scientific theory is inaccurate, at least there would be a shred of dignity associated with it.
The real reason HH wants to ask that question is to trap any Republican candidate. There is really no safe answer for him/her. Answer yes, and they alienate some of their base. Answer no, and they are of course a nut.
Other than that -- ask away!
Yes but the moronic evolution denying base is still going to vote for the republican candidate 100% of the time, with zero exception. I think a better presidential test would be to have the candidates explain what evolution is. If someone can give a generally accurate description and then explain why they think this scientific theory is inaccurate, at least there would be a shred of dignity associated with it.
Problem is the question is usually brought up during the primary when the decision for the base is between a Republican and a Republican.
If it's first brought up in the general election, any savvy politician (assuming they aren't on record already) would simply say "yes, I believe in evolution".
You haven't said what question EXACTLY we're discussing.
Assuming it's "Do you believe that life on earth evolved and is still evolving? If not, what do you believe about the origin and diversity of life on Earth."
A more specific question might mention Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, but since you have some variations of Darwin's theory, such as Punctuated Equilibrium, that gives a savvy pol a way to wiggle out of the question without ever quite answering it.
I would actively work to defeat anyone who refuses to answer "yes" to the question "Do you believe that life on earth evolved and is still evolving?" It's disqualifying. Too many urgent public policy issues depend on leaving aside faith-based views of the world and making decisions based on facts and evidence. People who say today they don't believe in any form of evolution are either liars or fools.
supposed to have duck sniper fire so I don't know njm is referring too. However, regarding the question "is he dim" I would like to point out that he is from NJ so you kind of should excuse stuff like that from him. He can't help it
Please read more carefully. I very specifically stated that he is obviously NOT dim. I find many of njm's responses on this board to be both informative and well thought out.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Its a question that insults one's intelligence. There are serious matters to discuss. This is a waste of time.
This. I'd rather find out about their economic and foreign policies. The President can't do anything about evolution or abortion or most of these social issues. It's a huge waste of time in these debates to bring them up. The Press only does it to get soundbites and tank the R candidates.
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Its a question that insults one's intelligence. There are serious matters to discuss. This is a waste of time.
Except that there really are adults in this country who don't believe in evolution, and this matters.
I agree that there are serious matters to discuss. Therefore, we should ask the evolution question to everyone who runs for President. If they say they don't believe in it, we can quickly move on to discussing the serious matters with those candidates who do.
Personally, if his personal view won't ever effect my life
I also disagree with the idea that a belief, even a whacky one, on one piece of science reflects whether or not they reject all established science or even any other piece of science.
This could easily get extrapolated to a candidate's view on global warming and other science issues. All those issues, and a person's view on them are, imo, independent of each other. And if I disagree with a candidate on their perception of global warming, it likely would not impact on how I view that person overall and, hence, my vote.
Hillary Clinton has intimated that there is a link between vaccines and autism. Should that disqualify her from being President? Does that indicate her views on evolution or any other part of science? I don't think so.
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
Uh, do you ask someone if they "believe" that 2+2=4?
If someone says, "Yes, I believe in Evolution.", does that mean that evolution is now a religion?
Last time I looked, Evolution was a well established scientific theory that currently is the best explanation of why species develop/change/go extinct over time.
Theories in Science aren't hunches, by the way; they are the best explanations we can come up with based on observations, and are as strong as the challenges they survive from peer review. Theories in science can be altered, based on new discoveries;
I also disagree with the idea that a belief, even a whacky one, on one piece of science reflects whether or not they reject all established science or even any other piece of science.
This could easily get extrapolated to a candidate's view on global warming and other science issues. All those issues, and a person's view on them are, imo, independent of each other. And if I disagree with a candidate on their perception of global warming, it likely would not impact on how I view that person overall and, hence, my vote.
Hillary Clinton has intimated that there is a link between vaccines and autism. Should that disqualify her from being President? Does that indicate her views on evolution or any other part of science? I don't think so.
Not weighing the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor of evolution over a single book indicates a systematically poor ability to reason. That's an extremely frightening weakness for a president.
The comparison with Hillary espousing a link between vaccinations and autism is pretty poor. The Lancet only just recently retracted a study published decades ago finding a link. That wass far more evidence then there is for any alternative to evolution.
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
The president has significant authority when it comes to education and his or her willingness to be ignorant on stuff like this is a deal-breaker for this voter.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
The other thing is whether he is honest enough to answer a tough question honestly, especially if he is campaigning in Kansas.
Looks like someone has to fight for the English language, too.
No, I don't believe that, nor is that in the spirit of why I asked the question. It has long puzzled me that someone can sell out completely to one viewpoint or another. We all know that no one viewpoint has all, or even most, of the answers to anything.
We all have our basic beliefs, and all lean in a certain direction, but to blithely accept one viewpoint seems to me to be stultifying and, ultimately, anti-intellectual. It truly puzzles me.
Not really following that logic. There are quite clearly people with at least somewhat realistic Presidential aspirations who do not believe in evolution. And I think it's important for them to acknowledge and explain such beliefs so voters can fully understand their position. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that such potential candidates do not similarly believe in Santa Claus. If I thought some might, I'd probably want that put to them to get it on the record as well.
Wasn't addressing you, dopey.
Other than that -- ask away!
Other than that -- ask away!
Yes but the moronic evolution denying base is still going to vote for the republican candidate 100% of the time, with zero exception. I think a better presidential test would be to have the candidates explain what evolution is. If someone can give a generally accurate description and then explain why they think this scientific theory is inaccurate, at least there would be a shred of dignity associated with it.
Quote:
The real reason HH wants to ask that question is to trap any Republican candidate. There is really no safe answer for him/her. Answer yes, and they alienate some of their base. Answer no, and they are of course a nut.
Other than that -- ask away!
Yes but the moronic evolution denying base is still going to vote for the republican candidate 100% of the time, with zero exception. I think a better presidential test would be to have the candidates explain what evolution is. If someone can give a generally accurate description and then explain why they think this scientific theory is inaccurate, at least there would be a shred of dignity associated with it.
Problem is the question is usually brought up during the primary when the decision for the base is between a Republican and a Republican.
If it's first brought up in the general election, any savvy politician (assuming they aren't on record already) would simply say "yes, I believe in evolution".
A more specific question might mention Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, but since you have some variations of Darwin's theory, such as Punctuated Equilibrium, that gives a savvy pol a way to wiggle out of the question without ever quite answering it.
I would actively work to defeat anyone who refuses to answer "yes" to the question "Do you believe that life on earth evolved and is still evolving?" It's disqualifying. Too many urgent public policy issues depend on leaving aside faith-based views of the world and making decisions based on facts and evidence. People who say today they don't believe in any form of evolution are either liars or fools.
Do you believe in more govt or less govt?
Do you believe that the press should be wiretapped?
Do you believe in drone strikes against american citizens?
Do you believe in the second amendment?
Etc.....
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Running along Sir!
Do you believe in more govt or less govt?
Do you believe that the press should be wiretapped?
Do you believe in drone strikes against american citizens?
Do you believe in the second amendment?
Etc.....
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Quote:
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Its a question that insults one's intelligence. There are serious matters to discuss. This is a waste of time.
Please read more carefully. I very specifically stated that he is obviously NOT dim. I find many of njm's responses on this board to be both informative and well thought out.
Quote:
if they REALLY ducked sniper fire.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
Like the OP isn't political.....
Quote:
In comment 12132560 natefit said:
Quote:
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Its a question that insults one's intelligence. There are serious matters to discuss. This is a waste of time.
This. I'd rather find out about their economic and foreign policies. The President can't do anything about evolution or abortion or most of these social issues. It's a huge waste of time in these debates to bring them up. The Press only does it to get soundbites and tank the R candidates.
Quote:
In comment 12132560 natefit said:
Quote:
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Its a question that insults one's intelligence. There are serious matters to discuss. This is a waste of time.
Except that there really are adults in this country who don't believe in evolution, and this matters.
I agree that there are serious matters to discuss. Therefore, we should ask the evolution question to everyone who runs for President. If they say they don't believe in it, we can quickly move on to discussing the serious matters with those candidates who do.
I also disagree with the idea that a belief, even a whacky one, on one piece of science reflects whether or not they reject all established science or even any other piece of science.
This could easily get extrapolated to a candidate's view on global warming and other science issues. All those issues, and a person's view on them are, imo, independent of each other. And if I disagree with a candidate on their perception of global warming, it likely would not impact on how I view that person overall and, hence, my vote.
Hillary Clinton has intimated that there is a link between vaccines and autism. Should that disqualify her from being President? Does that indicate her views on evolution or any other part of science? I don't think so.
If someone says, "Yes, I believe in Evolution.", does that mean that evolution is now a religion?
Last time I looked, Evolution was a well established scientific theory that currently is the best explanation of why species develop/change/go extinct over time.
Theories in Science aren't hunches, by the way; they are the best explanations we can come up with based on observations, and are as strong as the challenges they survive from peer review. Theories in science can be altered, based on new discoveries;
So, it's a bit more complicated. I would ask a candidate "Do you believe in the Scientific Method?", myself.
I also disagree with the idea that a belief, even a whacky one, on one piece of science reflects whether or not they reject all established science or even any other piece of science.
This could easily get extrapolated to a candidate's view on global warming and other science issues. All those issues, and a person's view on them are, imo, independent of each other. And if I disagree with a candidate on their perception of global warming, it likely would not impact on how I view that person overall and, hence, my vote.
Hillary Clinton has intimated that there is a link between vaccines and autism. Should that disqualify her from being President? Does that indicate her views on evolution or any other part of science? I don't think so.
Not weighing the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor of evolution over a single book indicates a systematically poor ability to reason. That's an extremely frightening weakness for a president.
The comparison with Hillary espousing a link between vaccinations and autism is pretty poor. The Lancet only just recently retracted a study published decades ago finding a link. That wass far more evidence then there is for any alternative to evolution.
And, here we go - LOL...