Posted on 01/04/2008 2:12:20 PM PST by Sub-Driver
US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists Jan 4 05:29 PM US/Eastern A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.
"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."
Former Arkansas governor Huckabee said in a debate in May that he did not believe in evolution.
A poll conducted last year showed that two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, or the theory that God created humans at a single point in time, while 53 percent believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life -- the theory of evolution.
Around a quarter of Americans said they believe in both.
The evolution versus creationism debate has crept into school classrooms and politics, where it is mainly conservative Republicans who espouse the non-scientific belief.
"If our country starts to behave irrationally whereas all the other countries coming up and chasing us (to take over as the world leaders in science and technology) behaving rationally, we are doomed," Omenn said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
What are you calling superstitious?!?!?!?!?!?
Drama Queens.
Two counterexamples.
1. Pat Robertson -- did well in Iowa and/or Minnesota, then faded almost as quickly as Howard Dean after "the scream".
2. Jimmuh Carter -- "born-again" but staunch lefty, enemy of Israel. First President to be last in the league in both the Economy and foreign policy.
Full Disclosure: so far, I'm a FRedhead. What are the leanings of Rades, Ichneumon, RWP, et al?
Cheers!
Perhaps you would care to explain how bacteria developing resistance to specific antibiotics over the course of thousands of generations is a result of "biochemistry" as opposed to natural selection?
Just another government-funded, wacko “scientist.”
My guess is that nearly every President we have had believed in creationism instead of the fallacy that we all came from the evolutionary ooze. So this “scientist” has really not done his research, nor has he arrived at the proper conclusions.
Bacteria don’t ‘develop’ resistance, it is, and always was, present in the general bacterial population, and the continued use of antibiotics selectively breeds that particular strain to the exclusion of others. Ending all antibiotic use for a continued period would result in a return of normal demographics to the bacterial populations.
Now, now...do not confuse the evos with the hypocrisy of their idiocy. :)
You're right. George Washington probably didn't understand heavier than air flight, germ theory, nuclear physics, or evolution, and dammit, if it's good enough for the 18th century, it's good enough for us.
Stupid "scientists" with their precious "scientific method" and ridiculous "evidence" for their "theories." What good has any of that ever done this country?
Bingo. And in the long run, which is more important: science or morals? I say the latter. And I say this as someone who has a Chemical Technology degree and and Electrical Engineering degree. So I am, indeed, a scientist. Science is very fascinating, makes life interesting, and does a lot of great things. But does it make us a moral people? No. Oh, I suppose the fact that I am a Christian means that I cannot truly enjoy real (as opposed to false “science” like evolution), so I guess I will put my flame-retardant clothing on now... :)
I just couldn't help myself. (Blush).
True science has done a lot for this country - it’s the phony stuff that drives me crazy. Kind of like Al Gore’s “consensus” for global warming. True science does not require “consensus.” It stands on its own. For example, the scientific fact that water consists of two H atoms and one O atom orientated as a 109-degree polar bond requires no consensus. It is a fact, unanimously accepted. THAT is true science.
First, there is no such thing as "normal" genetic demographics. The genetics of a population at any given time are exactly those produced by environmental pressures. There isn't some platonic ideal of bacterial genetics to which a population will revert in the absence of pressure.
Second, if there is an environmental pressure against the particular resistance, the population will lose that trait; that's the essence of natural selection.
Third, what peer-reviewed study demonstrates what you say to be true?
We’re not talking about global warming, we’re talking about the theory of evolution.
If you want to ignore overwhelming scientific evidence spanning several disciplines that’s your business. But to have a chief executive with enormous influence over our research priorities be wilfully ignorant of basic science is scary as hell to me.
That idea is the ignorant nonsense that got you confused. It is not true. The complete genetic spectrum of the organism remains. It is only the 'expressed' information that changes; remove the bias, and the natural condition returns.
Evolution is not science, basic, or otherwise.
A president ignorant enough to believe that it is would truly be dangerous. Thank God for George Bush; Kerry or Ghore would have been disastrous.
Could you please provide a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates your claim? I asked you to provide such evidence in the previous post, but you must have missed the request. Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Hasselbeck
In September 2007, Barry Manilow cancelled a scheduled appearance on The View due to his dislike of Hasselbeck and her conservative views. Manilow said, “I strongly disagree with her views. I think she’s dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her.” He added, “I had made a request that I be interviewed by co-hosts Joy (Behar), Barbara (Walters) or Whoopi (Goldberg), but not Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request, so I bowed out.”
Whoa! The intolerance is staggering! He admits the show is 3 to 1 lopsided on his side, and finds that is not enough. Leftist fascism is scary. Funny, but scary.
Next he’ll claim he’s a vegan vegetarian.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
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.