Can you vote for someone who doesn't believe in Evolution?

[Thorgrim]

Crooks and Liars » Who Doesn’t Believe in Evolution?

This isn't "Darwinism" (such a dumb way to frame it) this is about several things:

There is so much modern proof today's man and monkey that it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that we evolved from the same primate

It is also a fact that our ancestors were vultures...too weak and stupid to use other methods, we had to wait for vultures to pick off the flesh of dead animals and we only lived by cracking open the bones and eating the marrow...we are a race descended from vultures

It is NEARLY SCIENTIFIC FACT (should come in the next decade as research is looked over and examined again/refined) that all life on earth originated from single cell organisms...that you originated from goo

The only POSSIBLE controversy is how EXACTLY every step of evolution went, basically its like looking at an anciest house from the outside and two educated people are trying to figure out what engineering process they used, but they still know...it was built, it didn't drop out of the sky, and a maniac runs by screaming it dropped from the sky because the other two can't say EXACTLY how it was built RIGHT NOW

How could you elect someone who scientifically backwards?

Could you?

[lew]

A candidate needs to understand liberty and the Constitution.


I could care less what they thought about evolution, religious beliefs, or any other completely non-relevant issue.

[motivez]

No, I wont vote for someone who will likely bring with them an anti-science agenda.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by lew

A candidate needs to understand liberty and the Constitution.


I could care less what they thought about evolution, religious beliefs, or any other completely non-relevant issue.

[ballz2wallz]

Beliefs in evolution are wholly irrelevant to how a country is governed.

[motivez]

Not really, it speaks to the type of person they are and what agenda's they're likely to support.

In an ideal world, it wouldn't matter where someone stands on issues like this, but reality is not ideal.. and people with bullshit anti-science agendas are likely to promote them if elected.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

No, I wont vote for someone who will likely bring with them an anti-science agenda.

Not only that, but they obviously never had a basic course in biology in any university or a decent education...in college if you do not know your evolution FACTS you will fail the course

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by lew

A candidate needs to understand liberty and the Constitution.


I could care less what they thought about evolution, religious beliefs, or any other completely non-relevant issue.

Unlike the Al Gore sackriders, I don't give a shit what a politician thinks about science. (ZING! ) If a grown adult wants to believe that donkeys can talk, people can fly, and we were all created from dirt, then so be it. It's his right to believe that. I don't care about a politician's scientific ineptitude because my political philosophy dictates that science and politics should not mingle with one another.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Beliefs in evolution are wholly irrelevant to how a country is governed.

Not if they want to use their position to create policy and force their belief on my kids.


If someone just believes it, great. If he wants to "adjust" school curricula to reflect it, he can fuck off.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 7960

Not if they want to use their position to create policy and force their belief on my kids.


If someone just believes it, great. If he wants to "adjust" school curricula to reflect it, he can fuck off.

word. As soon as they want to start pushing some "just a theory!" mantra, that's where I draw the line. Being the good little Jeffersonian that I am, I believe that religion should be a private matter.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

word. As soon as they want to start pushing some "just a theory!" mantra, that's where I draw the line. Being the good little Jeffersonian that I am, I believe that religion should be a private matter.

this happened in merrimack NH...... (cliffs) a few people ran for school board, got their year or two stint, and immediately worked to change the curriculum or fire science teachers that wouldn't present creation/ID as an option. The voters had to way to remove them, either, so they had to wait it out until the next election.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Probably not. Practically speaking, people who disagree with evolution are usually religious fundamentalists, and I would never vote for a religious fundamentalist because they invariably try to weaken the separation of church and state.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

Not if they want to use their position to create policy and force their belief on my kids.


If someone just believes it, great. If he wants to "adjust" school curricula to reflect it, he can fuck off.

This is exactly why the President, Congress, and the Feds in general shouldn't be adjusting school curricula at all

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

Not really, it speaks to the type of person they are and what agenda's they're likely to support.

In an ideal world, it wouldn't matter where someone stands on issues like this, but reality is not ideal.. and people with bullshit anti-science agendas are likely to promote them if elected.

Evolution is only a relevant issue when the person ignores liberty and the Constitution.


If that person only functioned within Constitutional limits, then it would make ZERO difference what scientific or religious beliefs he had. There would be no agenda he would be supporting, since it wouldn't even be a constitutional issue.

[motivez]

Like I said, in an ideal world....

We don't live there, though, and until we do.. it's relevant

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

Like I said, in an ideal world....

We don't live there, though, and until we do.. it's relevant

But fixing the "problem" isn't about voting for someone who beliefs in science - the problem is fixed by voting for those that understand constitutional limits.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by lew

If that person only functioned within Constitutional limits, then it would make ZERO difference what scientific or religious beliefs he had. There would be no agenda he would be supporting, since it wouldn't even be a constitutional issue.

You act as if Constitutional limits are clear and indisputable. They're unclear enough to let people cause trouble, especially when you consider that federal judges picked by the president actually determine what the constitutional limits are.

[lew]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

You act as if Constitutional limits are clear and indisputable. They're unclear enough to let people cause trouble, especially when you consider that federal judges picked by the president actually determine what the constitutional limits are.

They're fairly clear.

[motivez]

What Spicy said. I mean, if it's someone like Ron Paul with a long history of being about nothing but the Constitution, etc.. then sure, it matters less to me.

However, there's not another person running who is like that, so it does matter to me.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by lew

They're fairly clear.

There are countless parts pertaining to important issues which are incredibly vague, e.g., due process, war powers, establishment clause, etc.

The inherent vagueness in these parts plus judicial review by the federal courts means, essentially, the constiution is often whatever the appointees of policians say it is.