Replies

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.

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.

What science is ok with Huckabee?

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

The notion that conservatives are waging a "war on science" has gained much traction in the media lately. And the anti-evolution position of some conservatives has, as National Review Editor Rich Lowry has written, "play[ed] into the image of Republicans as the anti-science party."

Its not just an "image" -- its a fact. This website is a prime example. Most scientists have left in disgust. They probably got tired of being told that they were going to hell, or being compared to nazis.

But the scientific community has nothing to fear from candidates like Mike Huckabee, for on many important public policy issues, religious conservatives have become the true champions of science.

Pure BS. "Religious conservatives," as shown by many on this website, are more likely to be champions for ID or YEC than science. Some appear to want a theocracy in place of our republic. See the Wedge Strategy for details. That's what the Discovery Institute meant when they wrote,

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions [emphasis added].

So just because he doesn’t accept the ToE as defined by the FRevos, he rejects ALL science? And you know this how?

You’re extrapolating at best, but that’s not surprising from someone who believes in evolution, because that’s what you have to do with the fossil record to arrive at the ToE.

In reality, you’re assuming.....

Sorry you are so blinded by your religious belief in evolution that you discount the fact that evolution does not play any part of geology, physics cosmology astronomy and biology.

That is unless you are claiming that there are 6 definitions of evolution. To which only the last one is observable and is used by evolutionary discussions as proof that the rest are true.

1: Cosmic evolution = big bang, origins
This one is claimed by every evolutionary debate as not part of evolution there for it does not require faith to believe something that no one seen as to have happened as stated by scientist (prophets)

2: chemical evolution + chemicals evolving to higher chemicals, that is all the atoms of the universe were once hydrogen, another faith based process as no one can reproduce this, that is hydrogen will not turn into uranium.

3: Planetary and stellar evolution = origin of stars and planets, here is a cool one no one has ever recorded a new star forming only exploding.

4: Organic evolution = origin of life, here is a real faith based belief upon the heart of the naturalist, rain fell upon the rocks (in a oxygen less environment) washing the minerals into a sea (of mass action) where lighting struck the volcanic warmed puddle and wallah you have life. Now maybe in secular chemistry they teach you something different but rain is made up of OXYGEN, and lightening makes OZONE.

5: Macro evolution = squiggly thing turns into swimming thing which turns into crawly thing which turns into flying thing and eventually man, now mind you this process has never been seen to take place yet mindless people believe that when a educated person puts fossils in a particular order he has proved evolution.

Micro evolution = adaptation and variation, this one has been observed can be tested and is true. This does not give evidence to the others in any way.

It is interesting that you bring up physics as the theory of evolution and the first five definitions of evolution described above break the laws in many areas.
Since evolution does not deal with origins as I have often been corrected upon cosmology is not threatened by creation as a possibility. Same with astronomy.

As for biology there is not one area of biology that requires any form of the 1 st five definitions to teach or learn it properly.