Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Huckabees veiw on evolution played zero role. I do think many people are uncomfortable of having a preacher as president though.
What science is ok with Huckabee?
Best I can tell, he rules out much of geology, physics, cosmology, astronomy and most of biology.
Mike Huckabee is a "Christian socialist." A sad cross between Jimmy Carter and Mike Dukakis. He has no place being in the GOP race, and using any reason whatsoever to knock him out of the race was fair game.
The implication, is, of course is that if you don't believe in evolution or killing embryos for research you can't believe in science. But how narrow and small-minded do you have to be to think your only options are to believe only in killing babies or that our ancestors were monkeys?
Huckabee didn’t lose the nomination because he’s wrong about evolution. That had nothing to do with it.
We’ve had preachers as presidents before. James Garfield was an ordained Presbyterian minister, for example.
That seems to be the evidence, otherwise Giuliani should have been in the position Huckabee finished.
Mike Huckabee is a “Christian socialist.”
You and I will have to disagree on that one. The Fair Tax is not a socialist position and his positions on spending were better than the supposed “capitalists” we have been told to support currently and in the past (Bush, Romney, etc ....).
My belief on this is that his past as a pastor, combined with his “down home” way of speaking, made the secular class of Republicans and talking heads so uncomfortable that they viewed him negatively from the beginning. They cited his speaking about issues for “common people” as too “populist” and “socialistioc.” But since when is our party against talking about those who are not financially well off?
If you examined his rhetoric closely, he spoke to issues that affected those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, but offered conservative solutions, like the fair tax, to solve them.
No I was NOT a Romney supporter but lord McCain's treatment using whatever means necessary to take him out and most especially with the assistance of the Reverend Huckabee dissolved their credibility factor.
Well, if the *proper* views on evolution are so critical, there’s always democrats to vote for, like Kerry.
After all, I can see how critical it is to foreign policy, being the commander-in-chief of the military, and making executive decisions to believe that we all evolved from some ape like ancestor. I mean, really what have morals got to do with those things? The important thing is that the president toe the evo line.
Huckabee didn’t lose the nomination because he’s wrong about evolution. That had nothing to do with it.
2 questions:
(1) What definitive science do we have to prove evolution as right, and then his position, as wrong?
(2) Why did he lose the nomination?
Sorry, he was not a Presbyterian minister. He was a minister and elder in the Christian Church denomination.
For some it is of the 'highest' order to maintain that tale, and even the leftist left would suffice if it meant a protection of their life investments. No way would Obama tear down their high estates no matter what his preacher preaches.
It's sort of like a Whitman Sampler of logical fallacies:
Category Error: The notion that the physical appearance of the unborn makes it any more (or less) likely that it is a "person" conflates incidental physical traits with fundamental moral nature.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: That's Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"; it refers to confusion between correlation and causation (e.g. the abortion and marriage "predictors", with no evidence that causation, if present at all, isn't in the opposite direction from the one implied -- does marriage cause a certain type of character, or vice versa? -- or both caused by a third factor).
Selective Choice Of Data: For starters, it's obvious that the "religious believers" who plow planes into skyscrapers aren't being counted in his statistics on positive "outcomes".
The Fair Tax is regressive and unfair to low income families. Some would argue that socialism requires regressive taxes.
... on spending were better than the supposed “capitalists” we have been told to support currently and in the past (Bush, Romney, etc ....).
Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas as governor. That is not (fiscally or economically) conservative at all.
My belief on this is that his past as a pastor, combined with his “down home” way of speaking, made the secular class of Republicans and talking heads so uncomfortable that they viewed him negatively from the beginning.
My main problems with Mike Huckabee, aside from being yet another GOP tax-and-spender, included the fact that he is soft on crime (pardoning a violent sex offender, common sense would always dictate one says no to that!), wrong on the War on Terror (openly critical of Bush's foreign policy, do we really need that on "our" side?), and anti-school-choice (endorsed by the NEA).
Just because someone is pro-life doesn't mean that the same someone can simply label themselves a "conservative."
Open your mind. Science is about observable phenomena. Origins is not observable. All we have is theories about how to interpret things from the past, but we cannot verify those with experimentation. Creationism or Intelligent Design Theory requires faith in a Designer. Evolution requires faith in a theory that has never been proven.
We don’t have time to debate evolution, but I will tell you this - it is only a theory. Not only that, it is a theory which has been forced to change its beliefs about itself several times over since it became mainstream - as a result of scientific findings. And even with all of the time, effort and energy spent looking for one, there is no “missing link” fossil that has been found to “prove” evolution.
The geologic column has been proven in several instances to not fit actual geologic strata at thousands of world wide locations. Molecular biology disproves Darwin’s contention that we evolve from the simple (single cell) to the complex (organisms) by demonstrating that each cell is extremely diverse and even more complicated that the organisms they make up. Astronomy and Cosmology we know so little about, that for anyone to claim to have knowledge is preposterous. The “Big Bang” theory has changed its structure so many times that it is laughable that it is accepted science.
So, yes, it is possible to “rule in” geology, physics, cosmology, astronomy and most of biology and reject evolution as the best theory of origins.
Your comments do not appear to be responsive to the question in my post.
It really depends on whether or not people really took Huck’s position on Evolution seriously, I would tend to doubt that it really was a factor in his loss.
However, the Ubber Evolution over allis people are very very serious about people bowing a knee to the Quasi Theory. Evolution may not matter to some, but to others it is a deal breaker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.