Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-evolution, pro science conservatives
WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/29/2008 | Gary Bauer and Daniel Allott

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 ...


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: 2008; bauer; christians; creationism; evangelicals; evolution; huckabee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 981-997 next last

1 posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wastedpotential

Huckabees veiw on evolution played zero role. I do think many people are uncomfortable of having a preacher as president though.


2 posted on 03/29/2008 7:00:34 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedpotential

What science is ok with Huckabee?

Best I can tell, he rules out much of geology, physics, cosmology, astronomy and most of biology.


3 posted on 03/29/2008 7:00:41 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedpotential
Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.

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.

4 posted on 03/29/2008 7:01:44 PM PDT by pnh102
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedpotential
I remember Kerry in his acceptance speech of his nomination that he said something to the effect: "we need a president who believes in science, one who will provide funding for embryonic stem cell research".

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?

5 posted on 03/29/2008 7:03:07 PM PDT by LiberConservative (Part of the "Vast Typical White Guy Conspiracy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedpotential

Huckabee didn’t lose the nomination because he’s wrong about evolution. That had nothing to do with it.


6 posted on 03/29/2008 7:04:12 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

We’ve had preachers as presidents before. James Garfield was an ordained Presbyterian minister, for example.


7 posted on 03/29/2008 7:06:38 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Huckabees veiw on evolution played zero role.

That seems to be the evidence, otherwise Giuliani should have been in the position Huckabee finished.

8 posted on 03/29/2008 7:08:11 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

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.


9 posted on 03/29/2008 7:08:36 PM PDT by wastedpotential (McCain says I am an agent of intolerance, he's right - I can't tolerate liberal Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wastedpotential
I do NOT believe the evolutionary fairy tale myself. However, To me Mr. Huckabee deceiving himself that he could win by joining forces with lord McCain against that rich ‘evil’ Romney is why I could not support him.

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.

10 posted on 03/29/2008 7:09:56 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Isa.3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

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.


11 posted on 03/29/2008 7:10:36 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

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?


12 posted on 03/29/2008 7:10:57 PM PDT by wastedpotential (McCain says I am an agent of intolerance, he's right - I can't tolerate liberal Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian; Always Right

Sorry, he was not a Presbyterian minister. He was a minister and elder in the Christian Church denomination.


13 posted on 03/29/2008 7:14:11 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: metmom
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.

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.

14 posted on 03/29/2008 7:17:00 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Isa.3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

15 posted on 03/29/2008 7:17:01 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wastedpotential
Well, this is the sort of "argumentation" one would expect from WingNut Daily.

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".

16 posted on 03/29/2008 7:18:05 PM PDT by steve-b (Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. --RAH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedpotential
The Fair Tax is not a socialist position and his positions ...

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."

17 posted on 03/29/2008 7:19:01 PM PDT by pnh102
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

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.


18 posted on 03/29/2008 7:19:12 PM PDT by wastedpotential (McCain says I am an agent of intolerance, he's right - I can't tolerate liberal Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Your comments do not appear to be responsive to the question in my post.


19 posted on 03/29/2008 7:19:43 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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.


20 posted on 03/29/2008 7:20:07 PM PDT by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3/Cry havoc and let slip the RINOS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 981-997 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson