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 ...
University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn has earned a degree. Good for him. He’s a bigoted idiot.
“distinguish between a belief and a theory”
Of course, one must begin by dismissing out of hand all evidence and reasoned argument in favor of a belief.
Then and only then is one ready to proceed.
104.5o.
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
I have not the slightest idea what you mean.
agreed...the way they were worded set them up as mutually exclusive, but I knew that the “author” meant the 25% believed in Intelligent Design...
you have to consider the entire article was written at a 3rd-grade level. =)
There are nutjobs in every group. Apparently, these 'scientists' are among them.
Sure. Just describe in excruciatingly specific scientific detail exactly how “macroevolution” occured(s) on a biochemical, cellular, and genetic level. Enough of the dinosaur specials on TV where an authoritative voice describes how amphibians and arthropods “evolved”. Give me the biochemical pathways and describe them fully and completely. What? No can do? Too bad!
“That doesn’t describe most parents. Many families either only have one parent or both have to work. And many are not educated enough to educate others. And frankly most parents don’t care enough to do the hard work and commitment that it takes to home school.
“So while I agree that many successful kids come out of home schooling and more people could home school, it doesn’t work as a model for the masses.”
I just don’t jive with the current slogan-ish comments that suggest that it requires two parents to work. We’ve been married 32 years. My wife has never worked outside the home. We have owned two homes without ever going into debt to a bank. No, we didn’t inherit anything, nor did we win any sweepstakes. I have an earned doctorate, and never borrowed money to pay a college or university. Two, thus far, of our seven children are college grads, one with a masters degree. Nobody borrowed money for their educations.
There’s just a way to do things.
But I wasn’t making the point that anyone should home school. My point was that Christians (called by the one I responding to, “superstitious” are not stupid people.
You just don't understand how simple the thought process is.
Step 1. All smart people believe in evolution.
Step 2. Those who don't believe in evolution are 'stupid people'.
Step 3. End of program.
Step 4. Return to Step 1.
“I have not the slightest idea what you mean.”
Well, if there is evidence and reasoned argument to support a belief, then what is the difference between a belief and a theory.
“There’s just a way to do things.”
I think you may be overlooking or underestimating the importance of the apparent fact that you are exceptionally smart, whereas many other people are not.
It’s not that we don’t want to do things as well as you have, and be a great success like you are. It’s just that we can’t, because we’re dumb.
Unfortunately, then, your model is not suitable for the great mass of humanity.
It's completely irrelevant what the president "believes" about the fossil record or monkey bones mythologies. Unless, of course, he or she embraces radical Social Darwinism and wants to impose eugenics programs derived from that.
They need to do some more homework and explain how the theories of Evolution should in any way influence the rule of law, taxation, national defense, or upholding the Constitution. Presidential powers are pretty limited. Which scientific theories deserve attention is up to the academic and scientific communities. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize a federal statist tyranny over education as imagined by secular humanists.
Secular humanists and scientists remain free to pursue their peculiar fantasies about monkey bones and alpha ape men whether Huckabee gets elected or not.
They can always seek consolation in Edgar Rice Burroughs or the Johnny Weismuller Tarzan movies if they feel too threatened.
Commander Pocket Protector Alert.
163 posted on 01/07/2008 5:45:37 AM EST by Berosus (Support our troops, bring them home -- from Bosnia.)
In fairness to the low caste hillbillies Clinton, Dean, and Franken, the diet was better in the 1700s. They drank fresh raw milk and ate more fresh protein. 18th-century gentleman farmers spent more time outdoors.
But, yes, it's arguable that as a nation, the U.S. faired better when not burdened by spastic, neurotic secular humanists whining about monkeys.
Still waiting for substantiation...
You know as well as I do that substantiation will not be forthcoming from that quarter. It’s sad but true that a sizable, important part of the conservative movement has decided that they would rather accept a Seventh-Day Adventist armchair geologists’ early 20th century notions about the earth than the evidence the earth itself provides.
This is especially troubling as, according to their belief system, the earth itself is the work of their God and should therefore be a perfect and inerrant record of his work.
That they are capable of such cognitive dissonance is troubling, considering how important they are to the political viability of conservatism in this country.
Does Obama believe in Evolution or does his constituency?
ping
Cognitive dissonance indeed.
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.