• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Huckabee doesn't want to talk about evolution...

headscratcher4

Philosopher
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Messages
7,776
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400966.html

And yet, shouldn't we all be concerened by a potential president who is able to ignore the overwhelming evidence and scientific principals behind modern biology and evolution? Haven't we had too many years of that alread under the current Administration?

How is his belief any more sacrocent or legitimate that Iran's president's denile of the Holocaust?
 
And yet, shouldn't we all be concerened by a potential president who is able to ignore the overwhelming evidence and scientific principals behind modern biology and evolution? Haven't we had too many years of that alread under the current Administration?

How is his belief any more sacrocent or legitimate that Iran's president's denile of the Holocaust?

I don't see why it would make a difference. What does the Federal Government have to do with it anyway? It's a more disturbing question, especially for those of us with libertarian leanings, as to why the federal government should be concerned with such issues. Education, for example, is better left to states and localities.

I've always thought that the denial of the Holocaust is the first step towards a justification for the destruction of Israel.
 
While I find it disconcerting that anyone chooses not to face the facts of evolution, I've come to the conclusion that a person's religious beliefs really don't matter in terms of their capacity to be president as long as they keep their religious beliefs out of their role as president.

If they can do that, yippie-skippie. If not, they aren't qualified, imho, to hold public office.
 
I don't see why it would make a difference. What does the Federal Government have to do with it anyway? It's a more disturbing question, especially for those of us with libertarian leanings, as to why the federal government should be concerned with such issues. Education, for example, is better left to states and localities.

This is debatable but the fact is that the federal government does run the educational system, and this is very unlikely to change in the next four years. Huckabee says that his beliefs are private, and as such I suppose he wants us to believe that he would not tinker with taxpayer funded science education in order to suit his own ideological ends. I don't believe him.
 
It would seem to be a bad political move for a conservative politician to comment in favor of evolution in this country. It will only loose them votes.
 
he wants us to believe that he would not tinker with taxpayer funded science education in order to suit his own ideological ends.

They will all tinker with whatever they want to suit their own ideological ends. The important question is whether you agree with those ends or not. Since this is a representative form of government we live under, I consider it illegitimate to rule out some ideological ends and not others, based on mere disagreement.

Of course, I'm not voting for Huckabee and I don't harbor any serious concerns that he'll be elected.
 
Is it possible to excuse a candidate who willfully -- or for "religious" reasons --ignores well established facts? If he can ignore science, because it doesn't fit with his religious beliefs, will he ignore history, geography, facts when it comes to dealing with other issues? Maybe not something you hold against a candidate, but one people should know about and think about, IMO.
 
Huckabee is probably just being a clever politician and trying to brush aside the issue. He's leading in Iowa. A media circling him with more questions about his religious beliefs would just bog him down.

Huckabee has gotten a free pass from the media for the most part since he wasn't on the radar at all. Now that he actually has a chance of winning an early primary, except much more concern about his "radical" or "backwards" religious beliefs.

Edited to add: screw the subforum, most of us didnt even notice when it went up
 
While I find it disconcerting that anyone chooses not to face the facts of evolution, I've come to the conclusion that a person's religious beliefs really don't matter in terms of their capacity to be president as long as they keep their religious beliefs out of their role as president.

If they can do that, yippie-skippie. If not, they aren't qualified, imho, to hold public office.
When a person is fundamentally disconnected from reality, I'm dubious that it can be conveniently pigeon-holed. This isn't something I'm inclined to stress about when it comes to the photocopy machine repair person. But POTUS? No way, no how.

Evidence: George Bush
 
Is it possible to excuse a candidate who willfully -- or for "religious" reasons --ignores well established facts? If he can ignore science, because it doesn't fit with his religious beliefs, will he ignore history, geography, facts when it comes to dealing with other issues? Maybe not something you hold against a candidate, but one people should know about and think about, IMO.
It shouldn't be possible to excuse a candidate who willfully or for religious reasons ignores well established facts.

Bush does this ignoring.

Well put, headscratcher.
 
Huckabee Bristles at Creationism Query:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher who has surged in Iowa with evangelical Christian support, bristled Tuesday when asked if creationism should be taught in public schools. Huckabee—who raised his hand at a debate last May when asked which candidates disbelieved the theory of evolution—asked this time why there is such a fascination with his beliefs.
"I believe God created the heavens and the Earth," he said at a news conference with Iowa pastors who murmured, "Amen."
"I wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know," Huckabee said.
But he expressed frustration that he is asked about it so often, arguing with the questioner that it ultimately doesn't matter what his personal views are.
"That's an irrelevant question to ask me—I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."
The former Arkansas governor pointed out he has advocated for broad public school course lists that include the creative arts and math and science. Why, then, he asked, is evolution such a fascination?
In fact, religion seems to be more of an issue in the GOP Iowa caucuses with one month left before the voting.
In recent weeks, Huckabee has moved from the back of the pack in the state to challenge longtime leader Mitt Romney, who would be the first Mormon president. The race is now a dead heat, with the Iowa caucuses—the first contest in the nomination fight—set for Jan. 3. Christian evangelicals, by many estimates, make up anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent of Republicans who will attend the caucuses.
Huckabee, at a dinner in Des Moines, told reporters that the theory of intelligent design, whose proponents believe an intelligent cause is the best way to explain some complex and orderly features of the universe, should be taught in schools as one of many viewpoints. "I don't think schools ought to indoctrinate kids to believe one thing or another," he said.
Earlier Tuesday in Newton, Iowa, Huckabee wouldn't say whether he thought Mormonism—rival Romney's religion—was a cult.
"I'm just not going to go off into evaluating other people's doctrines and faiths. I think that is absolutely not a role for a president," the former Arkansas governor said.
While he said he respects "anybody who practices his faith," Huckabee said that what other people believe—he named Republican rivals Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton—"is theirs to explain, not mine, and I'm not going to."
He also resisted wading into theology when pressed to explain why some evangelicals don't view the Mormon faith as a Christian denomination.
For months, Romney held wide leads in polls in the state, but he also has faced skepticism about his religion. The former Massachusetts governor plans to address his faith in a major speech Thursday in Texas.
Huckabee has consolidated the support of influential religious conservatives, primarily by reaching out to a network of pastors across the state. He spoke privately Monday night to several hundred gathered in Des Moines for a conference, the only presidential candidate to do so.
He appeared with more than 60 Iowa pastors endorsing him at a news conference Tuesday, including best-selling author Tim LaHaye of "Left Behind" fame and his wife, Beverly. Also endorsing him was Chuck Hurley, an influential Iowa conservative who had backed Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a conservative who quit the race in October.
LaHaye called Huckabee "the most electable candidate who shares our commitment."
As he has risen in polls, Huckabee has emphasized his own faith and in recent weeks has sought to draw subtle distinctions with his rivals by running a TV ad on the issue in the state.
"Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me. I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe," Huckabee says in the ad. "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now, not ever."
A group affiliated with Huckabee supporters has begun taking on his rivals directly, organizing caucus-goers in Iowa and making automated phone calls that favor Huckabee and criticize his rivals. Huckabee has urged an end to the calls; Romney on Tuesday asked Iowa's attorney general to investigate the group's activities.
Huckabee said an investigation "would be fine with me."
"As you heard me say, I repudiate anything that attacks another person. It does not help us. I believe it hurts us."

[emphasis mine]
 
Huckabee is probably just being a clever politician and trying to brush aside the issue. He's leading in Iowa. A media circling him with more questions about his religious beliefs would just bog him down.

Huckabee has gotten a free pass from the media for the most part since he wasn't on the radar at all. Now that he actually has a chance of winning an early primary, except much more concern about his "radical" or "backwards" religious beliefs. I have found the media, on a whole, to be sickeningly deferential to radical, backwards religio-political leaders.

Edited to add: screw the subforum, most of us didnt even notice when it went up


Why do you put radical and backwards in quotes? I think those are pretty straightforward and accurate adjectives to describe Huck's religous beliefs. But then, that's just me.

Seriously though, what media are you talking about? I've yet to hear any mainstream media* refer to the Christocrats in the race already in such strident terms.

* For sake of argument, I refer to major network news and cable news channels and news pages of major papers.
 
I am greatly concerned about it, and it IS a relevant question. Belief in creationism over evolution is merely a symptom of a greater problem, a low respect for science and/or a very poor scientific understanding.

The president sets the tone for national policy. And by having a president who is so willing to question basic science principles on the basis of what he wishes were true only propogates the anti-science/engineering culture that has been developing in the US.

This culture has resulted (and leads to):
weakening math/science education
fewer students entering science/engineering in college
fewer graduating engineers/scientists means technical jobs move abroad
Decreased funding to NSF/NIH (government funds what people are concerned about, and if science isn't it...)
blockades to areas of research(stem cell research is merely one example)



How the president views science is very important and should be pressed on all candidates.
 
I am greatly concerned about it, and it IS a relevant question. Belief in creationism over evolution is merely a symptom of a greater problem, a low respect for science and/or a very poor scientific understanding.

The president sets the tone for national policy. And by having a president who is so willing to question basic science principles on the basis of what he wishes were true only propogates the anti-science/engineering culture that has been developing in the US.

This culture has resulted (and leads to):
weakening math/science education
fewer students entering science/engineering in college
fewer graduating engineers/scientists means technical jobs move abroad
Decreased funding to NSF/NIH (government funds what people are concerned about, and if science isn't it...)
blockades to areas of research(stem cell research is merely one example)



How the president views science is very important and should be pressed on all candidates.

Some statistics with absolute or relative levels of support for science (with your criteria above as a guide) plotted against the relative level of religiosity of the American people would be interesting.
 
I am greatly concerned about it, and it IS a relevant question. Belief in creationism over evolution is merely a symptom of a greater problem, a low respect for science and/or a very poor scientific understanding.

The president sets the tone for national policy. And by having a president who is so willing to question basic science principles on the basis of what he wishes were true only propogates the anti-science/engineering culture that has been developing in the US.

This culture has resulted (and leads to):
weakening math/science education
fewer students entering science/engineering in college
fewer graduating engineers/scientists means technical jobs move abroad
Decreased funding to NSF/NIH (government funds what people are concerned about, and if science isn't it...)
blockades to areas of research(stem cell research is merely one example)



How the president views science is very important and should be pressed on all candidates.]
Some statistics with absolute or relative levels of support for science (with your criteria above as a guide) plotted against the relative level of religiosity of the American people would be interesting.
I don't have thorough statistics but in yesterday's The San Diego Union Tribune, an article titled U.S. teens perform poorly on major math-science exam writes to the effect that joobz mentions, and I quote below these excerpts:

"WASHINGTON- American teenagers have less mastery of science and mathematics than peers in many industrialized nations.
...
The average science score of U.S. teens lagged behind that of students in 16 of 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Development, a Paris-based group that represents the world's richest countries.
...
The PISA results underscore concern in education and industry that too few U.S. students are prepared to become engineers...
...
In math, only four countries had average scores lower than United States. Students in 23 countries earned a higher average score,...
..."
 
Last edited:
I don't have thorough statistics but in yesterday's The San Diego Union Tribune, an article titled U.S. teens perform poorly on major math-science exam writes to the effect that joobz mentions, and I quote below these excerpts:

"WASHINGTON- American teenagers have less mastery of science and mathematics than peers in many industrialized nations.
...
The average science score of U.S. teens lagged behind that of students in 16 of 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Development, a Paris-based group that represents the world's richest countries.
...
The PISA results underscore concern in education and industry that too few U.S. students are prepared to become engineers...
...
In math, only four countries had average scores lower than United States. Students in 23 countries earned a higher average score,...
..."

There are some interesting and, IMHO, legitimate criticisms of these comparisons. First, many of the countries being compared more clearly distinguish between college bound and vocationally bound education tracks. While every American senior is in the data-set, not every French senior is because 2/3 of the class has been tracked out of the college eligible ranks.

Second, there are some age differences between the classes being compared.

Third, it's not clear to me that religion or religiosity has anything to do with it. This is a case you would have to make.
 
...
Third, it's not clear to me that religion or religiosity has anything to do with it. This is a case you would have to make.
The San Diego Union Tribune of Thursday August 24, 2006 writes:

"Roughly one-third of Americans surveyed by a Michigan State University researcher say they do not believe in evolution...In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and France, for example, 80 percent or more of the surveyed adult population accept the idea of evolution..."

When people don't believe in Evolution, that's because of a belief in religious Creationism, including faith in undemonstrable miracles.
See Huckabee's interview about belief in Creationism by an imaginary 'God' with Huckabee saying that he wasn't there but he believes in Creationism and 'God' anyway, well quoted in a post above.
(note regarding undemonstrable miracles: I saw in www.infidels.org a statistic about no more claims of miracles performed at Lourdes in France -a traditional place for believers- after 1950s when science started to scrutinize the claims)

When people believe in Evolution, that's because of belief in the rationality and demonstrability in science.
 
Last edited:
The San Diego Union Tribune of Thursday August 24, 2006 writes:

"Roughly one-third of Americans surveyed by a Michigan State University researcher say they do not believe in evolution...In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and France, for example, 80 percent or more of the surveyed adult population accept the idea of evolution..."

When people don't believe in Evolution, that's because of a belief in religious Creationism, including faith in undemonstrable miracles.
See Huckabee's interview about belief in Creationism by an imaginary 'God' with Huckabee saying that he wasn't there but he believes in Creationism anyway, well quoted in a post above.
(note regarding undemonstrable miracles: I saw in www.infidels.org a statistic about no more claims of miracles performed at Lourdes in France -a traditional place for believers- after 1950s when science started to scrutinize the claims)

When people believe in Evolution, that's because of belief in the rationality and demonstrability in science.

The Christian Science Monitor has this story:

Not everyone sees PISA as bulletproof. Comparing something as different as educational systems in countries with different cultures and populations is fraught with complexities; some experts say the rankings are not as straightforward as they might seem.


"People love to cite bad stories," says Clifford Adelman, an associate with the Institute for Higher Education Policy, noting that after each PISA release, experts tend to bemoan America's poor showing. The truth, he says, is more complicated. The US, for instance, typically has a large proportion of students taking the test in a language other than their native one. Some countries track lower performing students into vocational schools where they will not be tested. Other countries are just smaller and more homogenous.


"The question is how you account for that statistically," says Mr. Adelman. In these tests, "I'm comparing [the US] a country of 300-odd million people, a nation of immigrants, that is incredibly diverse with, in the example of Finland, a country of [just under] 6 million people."
 
While I find it disconcerting that anyone chooses not to face the facts of evolution, I've come to the conclusion that a person's religious beliefs really don't matter in terms of their capacity to be president as long as they keep their religious beliefs out of their role as president.

If they can do that, yippie-skippie. If not, they aren't qualified, imho, to hold public office.
The whole faith thing baffles me completely anyway. How does "faith" make any sense at all. Furthermore, the fact that is doesn't make any sense serves to make it more noble and admirable in some peoples eyes. I don't mean to bring up Ron Paul (honestly, seriously) but on Lew Rockwell's blog there is a YouTube video of Ron Paul being interviewed the MSNBC senior political correspondent discussing the faith issue in regard, particularly, to Romney and Huckabee and I think it is pretty impressive and you would approve. Also, there is a YouTube radio interview of Ron by a fire breathing psycho evangelical type who is turning himself inside out to get Ron to say that homosexuals are evil and an abomination and Ron, in his very typically graceful way steadfastly refuses to take the bait. I wish I could find it again. But if you could listen to that interview and not come away completely impressed with the man's integrity and humanity then I would be speechless.
 

Back
Top Bottom