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

joobz said:
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.
Click to expand...

More than that, the greater problem is basic dishonesty.
Creationism is inherently dishonest in that the entire concept relies on either:
a) willful ignorance
b) pandering to the willfully ignorant.

The willfully ignorant ignore reality that threatens their beliefs, the panderers cater to that audience.

Dishonesty to this degree in a persons character would certainly affect the ability of that person to competently lead a country. Or sell used cars for that matter.
 
The NSF is extremely concerned over these numbers.
for example
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106916

It isn't a question of missleading statistics. It is a real trend. The question is WHY is there a decrease in science interest.

I hypothesize that it has all to do with a culture of disrespect/antagonism towards science that has erected. Kids who grow up thinking, "Well science is wrong about evolution..." are more likely to have no respect for science and no desire to enter the field. The culture isn't purely religious either. Environmentalist groups, who view chemical companies and the like as the enemy, further vilify science.

So, I definitely hold any presidential candidate in contempt who doesn't respect science for science.
 
joobz said:
The NSF is extremely concerned over these numbers.
for example
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106916

It isn't a question of missleading statistics. It is a real trend. The question is WHY is there a decrease in science interest.

I hypothesize that it has all to do with a culture of disrespect/antagonism towards science that has erected.

Kids who grow up thinking, "Well science is wrong about evolution..." are more likely to have no respect for science and no desire to enter the field. The culture isn't purely religious either.

Environmentalist groups, who view chemical companies and the like as the enemy, further vilify science.
Click to expand...
Interesting point.

General comment on the thread:

I am trying to figure out where any of you take Huck's remarks as being a proponent of creationism. What he explicitly stated, to the questioner, was that he didn't know, and admits he doesn't know, about the literalist "6000 year 6 day" bit. I saw the excerpt from the debate last night on a Youtube clip. That is what he said.

That isn't the Creationist position. (Or maybe that isn't the YEC position.)

What he says he believes is that God made the whole thing. That's a bit more open ended, and even approaches a Deist position, though him being a former Baptist minister, he's not likely a Deist.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
What he says he believes is that God made the whole thing. That's a bit more open ended, and even approaches a Deist position
Click to expand...

It may be more open ended, but I think if you look at it like that you're overlooking the important part:

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.
Click to expand...

He thinks we should teach all the viewpoints- regardless of the evidence. Just ignore the scientific method and teach all the different viewpoints. Some people think the earth is flat. Some think 2 + 2 = 5. Those are different viewpoints too- do we really want our schools indoctrinating kids to believe that the earth is round and 2+2=4?
 
Last edited:
There are an infinite number of possible viewpoints.

Teaching them all seems impractical...
 
Bob Klase said:
It may be more open ended, but I think if you look at it like that you're overlooking the important part:
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, Bob, I hadn't cottoned onto him sanctioning ID as a school subject.

Not such a hot idea.

If ID wants to be in science classes, it has a few decades of research, and A HELL OF A LOT OF NEW EVIDENCE to find in order to get in the door as a science subject. The Bible is a fine book, but it should not be mistaken for a science book.

So, the Huckster openly advocating that is a good reason not to vote for him. His "Willy Horton" style vignette is rather amusing as well, if one cares for the theatre of the macabre.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Thanks for that, Bob, I hadn't cottoned onto him sanctioning ID as a school subject.

Not such a hot idea.

If ID wants to be in science classes, it has a few decades of research, and A HELL OF A LOT OF NEW EVIDENCE to find in order to get in the door as a science subject. The Bible is a fine book, but it should not be mistaken for a science book.
Click to expand...
That was my understanding. I've heard him give the "there's gaps in evolution" argument.

If a candidate was to come out and say,
"I let science say how things happened. My faith tells me why."
or if they were to say that they believe god created everything, but science is discovering the ways in which it happened. I'd be equally happy.

I'm not against faith. I'm just against liars and against faith that leads to amoral behavior (e.g., bigotry, sexism, antigay, antiscience, antimedical care, anti-religious choice)


Darth Rotor said:
So, the Huckster openly advocating that is a good reason not to vote for him. His "Willy Horton" style vignette is rather amusing as well, if one cares for the theatre of the macabre.

DR
Click to expand...
I did not see that. DO you have a link, or I could simply google.
 
Last edited:
To:
Stone Island said:
...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.
...
Click to expand...
1.) The article writes:

"...The PISA test, given every three years, measures the ability of 15-year olds to solve math and science problems...".

So there are not "...some age differences between the classes being compared..." like you write.

2.) The article writes:

"...On the science portion, the students, 10th-graders,...".

So there is not "...many of the countries being compared more clearly distinguish between college bound and vocationally bound education tracks..." like you write, but there is 10th-graders from U.S. who are prepared to be college-bound against 10th.-graders from elsewhere who are prepared to be college-bound.
Stone Island said:
The Christian Science Monitor has this story:
Click to expand...
The problem in your take above is putting words that aren't there:

1.) there are not "...some age differences between the classes being compared...", it's 15-year olds;

2.) there is not "...many of the countries being compared more clearly distinguish between college bound and vocationally bound education tracks...", it's 10th-graders preparing to be college bound.


I find this putting of words into the mouth, persistent in U.S. in order to diffuse data and switch to religious man-made interpretations and excuses.
 
cyborg said:
There are an infinite number of possible viewpoints.

Teaching them all seems impractical...
Click to expand...
Science is not a viewpoint.

Science adopts theories and mechanisms that give repeatable results.

So in determining facts, only science does it.

Teaching science is practical.

When a theory is not repeatable, it remains a theory, a viewpoint.

Religions are theories, never proved.

For example it has never been proved that people can raise from the dead.
In fact it's unsupported that people can raise from the dead, when it has never been done scientifically and when the Bible claiming this to have been done lacks corroboration by witnessing from outside the Bible.
Furthermore, some theories disprove themselves with incoherent statements, like the Bible being inconsistent over many pages regarding Judas's death.

So there are an infinite number of religions which are impractical and false to teach, but one science which is practical and true to teach.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
When I wrote my first post, I wasn't talking about that article as I hadn't read it yet.
Click to expand...
The response I gave to the take from The Christian Science Monitor about the PISA test -The Christian Science Monitor's take which you brought up- is deserved.
 
I would never vote for a politician that favors Creationism over Evolution.

I respect their right to believe whatever they choose and whether or not they would have any direct influence on the issue is irrelevant.

To adhere to a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, however, is a sharp insight into their judgment which is of optimal concern to me if they want my vote.

I agree with Bill Mahar when he said something to the effect, “I’d rather have the captain of the ship of state navigate with a map and a compass than chicken entrails.”

Even if you suspect they take such a stance as vote saving strategy that does not speak well for their honesty and candor.
 
what does PISA mean by 'enough engineers"?

Enough for what?

Are they wanting to hire engineers from the US? Because there are WAY too many in most fields here as it stands to find employment
 
pipelineaudio said:
what does PISA mean by 'enough engineers"?

Enough for what?

Are they wanting to hire engineers from the US? Because there are WAY too many in most fields here as it stands to find employment
Click to expand...
This would be the first time I have ever heard such a statement. I know of no student having a hard time getting a job. I know that salaries are through the roof for chemEs because of the lack of engineers entering the field. I also know that this trend is like to increase with the number of engineers retiring right now. (I only speak of ChemE and Mat E fields).
 
pipelineaudio said:
what does PISA mean by 'enough engineers"?

Enough for what?

Are they wanting to hire engineers from the US? Because there are WAY too many in most fields here as it stands to find employment
Click to expand...
Enough for Engineering work in U.S..

For every foreign-trained Engineer working in U.S. at a 6 figure salary, there is one American uneducated in Engineering.

The San Diego Union Tribune of Monday August 20 2007 writes in page A8:

"...Immigrants who are eligible for high-skilled-employment visas include doctors, nurses and people with advanced degrees and technological skills. Before they can apply, they must obtain certification that no American workers are available for their jobs."

Me I came to U.S. on Electrical Engineering with experience in C.E.L.P. speech-compression algorithms for which "...no American workers are available...".
(instead of your "...Because there are WAY too many in most fields here as it stands to find employment.")

Huckabee, Romney, and others wouldn't qualify to live in U.S., if they were educated like this in a foreign country.
But some want them and their education for President?
 
Last edited:
Blue Monk said:
I respect their right to believe whatever they choose and whether or not they would have any direct influence on the issue is irrelevant.

To adhere to a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, however, is a sharp insight into their judgment which is of optimal concern to me if they want my vote.
Click to expand...


Hear, hear! Frankly, I've been a little surprised at how many people here take the "it's okay as long as it doesn't effect how he governs" view. I mean, we're talking about a person's most fundamental perception of the way the universe works. How can that not affect their overall credibility as a leader and decision maker? If a candidate publicly announced a beleif in leprechauns or pod people or the factual accuracy of the Matrix movies, the entire country would be calling very loludly for them to explain themselves. But because their kooky, unsupportable beliefs happen to fall into that category of kooky, unsupportable beliefs that we call Religion, they're not only off limits to scrutiny, but they're also seen as being somehow more "detachable" from day-to-day life and duties than more exotic (but no more far-fetched) kooky beliefs would be.

Seeing this attitude in the population at large doesn't surprise me at all. Seeing it as often as I've been seeing it on a skeptics' board makes me wonder if I've missed a memo or woken up in a parallel dimension or something.
 
Last edited:
headscratcher4 said:
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?
Click to expand...
No matter to me, I won't be voting for him in any world I can conceive of.:)
 
Hucky leads Iowa due to evangelicals.

U.S. had Bush II, and now Hucky because U.S. has retards galore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom