Mitt Romney isn’t the only Republican who needs to talk some more about his religious beliefs.
Consider this from Mike Huckabee:
Huckabee, at a dinner in Des Moines, told reporters that the theory of intelligent design, whose proponents believe an intelligent cause is the best way to explain some complex and orderly features of the universe, should be taught in schools as one of many viewpoints. “I don’t think schools ought to indoctrinate kids to believe one thing or another,” he said.
The problem, of course, is that intelligent decision isn’t science, it’s religious faith disguised as scientific theory. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory that has withstood the rigors of the scientific method for over 100 years and proven to become the underlying principle of everything we know about biology. To say that you reject evolution as science is, in essence, to reject science.
And, in the end, I’d be more concerned about a President who rejects science than one who doesn’t drink coffee.
H/T: Ron Chusid
December 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
This is just not true. There is more evidence against evolution than in support of it.
Regardless of which theory one uses, at some point in the past something created everything from nothing. You cannot argue against that, and it is impossible to know exactly what happenned.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
It’s hard for me to fathom how a President could impose any particular curriculum on a school system. But, let’s say Huckabee’s elected and he does allow/recommend/command that Intelligent Design be taught in association with Evolution. This isn’t “rejecting science”. If indeed Evolution carries the most scientific authority, it will win out. To borrow a religious (and therefore, unscientific) quote, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
December 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Pistol Pete,
Well considering that Tax Hike Mike is campaigning on developing a national science curriculum, a lot.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Michael purports that ‘in the past, something created everything from nothing’. He assumes the typical anthrocentric view of the universe which is cause/effect and linear. I suspect that physics will reveal that it is neither (actually, cosmologists already are heading sown that path) and the notion that some sort of super dad in the heavens is necessary to explain things is a dodge for those who don’t want to put the effort into thinking about things with no verifiable answer. Intelligent designers always get hung up on who designed the designer…
January 4th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Whether a greater power created all on Earth is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. The legitimacy of creationism/intelligent design is not something that can be proven in a science setting. Science is about observation and hypotheses. You must be able to test your hypotheses. You will NEVER be able to test whether a higher power created life. To suggest that creationism/intelligent design is something even being debated in the scientific community is dishonest. The most viable theory (the only viable theory at this time?) is the evolution of species. A belief in evolutionary theory and a belief in a higher power are not incompatible. Evolution is so amazing and perfect, it provides plenty of inspiration to believe in something greater “out there.”