https://youtu.be/Yz8VbAxkaDw

In 2008 GOP Candidates were asked they believed in Darwinian Evolution, 2/3 said they did.
2013 it was down to 1/3.
By 2016, only one (out of 17) did, brave Jeb Bush, but he quickly walked it back and said he didn't know it should be taught in schools and if it is, it should be taught alongside creationism.

Why?

Once you have a political party, where more and more members believe in supernatural explanations, the more and more you'll have a party that will embrace the fantastical in its politics and policies. Believe what you want in the privacy of your own home, but when it bleeds over into how we manage and construct our public policies, we're in trouble." Kurt Anderson, NPR journalist

"I don’t think all of them disbelieve in evolution, just some of them—but they were all obliged to say 'yes' to falsehood and magical thinking of this religious kind, and that’s where it becomes problematic." From climate change to Creationism and outright conspiracy theories, Andersen points to how the Republican party has come to increasingly incorporate fantasy and wishful untruths into its approach to social, economic, and foreign policy—and it's turning America into an anti-science spectacle. Kurt Andersen is the author of Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire.

also: I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept it as the best explanation we have for the origins of life on earth.

Yes and it all goes back to the Elmer Gantry syndrome

One problem with this post is the failure to differentiate between "Darwinian Evolution" and *evolution* generally. Here is the distinction:

"Darwinian Evolution" or as is often called "Neo-Darwinism" states that biological complexity in all its forms can be explained in substantial part by random mutations at the genetic level coupled with natural selection. (Micro-evolution) This definition is most certainly false, and it is doubtful that many molecular biologists would subscribe to such a simplistic explanation today. (Except Richard Dawkins of course!) The mechanisms of evolution on both the molecular and species level are much more complicated than that, and have to be given known biological facts. As such, I would guess that the majority of molecular biologists--if answering technically and not rhetorically -- would also answer the question about belief in Darwinian evolution, NO! And this answer has become more and more apparent in the past 50 or so years; beginning with the discovery of the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion in 1971, and the EVO-DEVO (Evolutionary Development) revolution in the 90s.

The legitimate question, i.e. the "evolution" (small "e") is whether biological complexity, including species formation, arose from simple biological systems by a variety of complex natural processes. The answer to that question is uncontroversially, YES!

The fact that the OP's link did not ask the right question demonstrates that the author himself does not understand evolution, and thus is ill-equipped to comment on why any politician would answer negatively to this question as posed.

The question becomes more complicated because the Intelligent Design folks have emphasized and exploited this distinction for decades, rightly criticizing and questioning Neo-Darwinism's explanatory power, without acknowledging other natural mechanisms and processes that might contribute to evolution. In response, the Neo-Darwinists, like Dawkins, have defended Neo-Darwinism, when they should have pointed to a broad range of natural processes and biological facts that explain evolution without the need for invoking a creator.

So, how should a knowledgeable person answer the question at issue; technically or rhetorically (politically correctly)? And how are we to know what they intended by their answer? My guess is that almost all politicians believe evolution is real, but they want to leave open the possibility that God played some role in either the origin of life, or its apparent directedness toward intelligent agents. Notwithstanding the lack of evidence for a creator, this is not an irrational position for a believer in God to take, given what is known and not known about the fine points of evolutionary processes.

Religious nuts with guns founded this country!

Not at all. Deists, agnostics and atheists founded this country.

And they possessed very few semi-automatic assault muskets.

Are you forgetting the pilgrims(puritans) who formed the nucleus of early America colonization in the northeast.

Not at all. The founders of the country were those who wrote the constitution.

As for the Puritans, the Catholics, and the others who came earlier, you'd find a lot of pacifists in their midst, people who thought weapons were for hunting and not for warfare. Moreover a lot of them were adamantly opposed to the creation of a united country. So it's quite a stretch to call them founders of anything but their own colonies.

Nuts!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not at all. Deists, agnostics and atheists
> founded this country.
>
> And they possessed very few semi-automatic assault
> muskets.

Muskets were still guns. Firearms - and many of the early settlers of what is now the USA were, on the East Coast often religious types of one sort or another.

The Spanish and their Priests with the "convert or die" mentality were "religious", had firearms and were here before the English types along the Eastern Seaboard.

Overall, religion is toxic. It gives rise to elitism and a sick "God is on our side" view that can justify anything.

JoeSmith666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lot's Wife Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not at all. Deists, agnostics and atheists
> > founded this country.
> >
> > And they possessed very few semi-automatic
> assault
> > muskets.
>
> Muskets were still guns. Firearms - and many of
> the early settlers of what is now the USA were, on
> the East Coast often religious types of one sort
> or another.
>
> The Spanish and their Priests with the "convert or
> die" mentality were "religious", had firearms and
> were here before the English types along the
> Eastern Seaboard.
>
> Overall, religion is toxic. It gives rise to
> elitism and a sick "God is on our side" view that
> can justify anything.

"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" by Jarod Diamond, boiled down human history to guns, germs and steel,
up until nukes, which changed the calculus.
Now we've got nuclear armed robots, which kinda makes guns irrelevant, but not steel and certainly not germs!
What's that do the the 'fate of human society"?
Can't wait to see his follow up,
"Nuclear Robots with Lasers: The Fate of Human Society, Run Mother Fucker Run!!!!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2020 01:15PM by schrodingerscat.

Yet another book you have obviously not read. My heavens, Kori, do you think you can fake your way through everything?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet another book you have obviously not read. My
> heavens, Kori, do you think you can fake your way
> through everything?

How the fuck would you know what books I've read and which ones I haven't? That's the most arrogant thing I've ever read on this board!

> How the fuck would you know what books I've read
> and which ones I haven't?

I would the fuck know which books you haven't read by watching when you mistake the title of a volume for its argument.

Diamond did not "boil down human history to guns, germs and steel, up until nukes." You would know that if you had the fuck read the book.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > How the fuck would you know what books I've
> read
> > and which ones I haven't?
>
> I would the fuck know which books you haven't read
> by watching when you mistake the title of a volume
> for its argument.
>
> Diamond did not "boil down human history to guns,
> germs and steel, up until nukes." You would know
> that if you had the fuck read the book.

^^^^ arrogant AF!!!
FO!

You still didn't read the book.

SC, I thought the same thing as LW.

Your comment about the book is not what the book is about. I thought either you didn't read the book or you were trying to make some kind of joke about the title (which didn't really make sense to me either).

He reads The Internet.

He reads Youtube.

It’s nice to see someone make the distinction. Charles Darwin did leave room for the supernatural, such as Lamarckian inheritance. Neo-Darwinists basically reject that.

Intelligent Design suffers from the same problem: How does one define God? It’s certainly too nebulous for science, so the ID guys are nailing Jello to a wall.

But I’m pretty sure the GOP doesn’t think deeply about such things. Or rather, their amygdala doesn’t. Their boy is so invested in the Evangelical vote that the entire GOP is wired to cater to that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2020 06:30PM by bradley.

I didn't ask the question.
The moderators of the 3 presidential debates mentioned in the OP, asked the question. The results indicate a steep increase in scientific denialism (delusion) over the 8 years between 2008 and 2016.
I never would have asked the question, "Do you believe in evolution?" because it's a stupid question.
Evolution isn't something you 'believe in', like I said in the O.P., it's a scientific theory that is so widely accepted and useful, that it's accepted as scientific fact and used to save lives every day, which you either accept or reject. If you don't accept scientific fact, I don't know how you passed 7th Grade science class and you should be denied medical treatment for your burst appendix or impacted molar until you claim Charles Darwin as your personal savior.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2020 09:14PM by schrodingerscat.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that the OP's link did not ask the right
> question demonstrates that the author himself does
> not understand evolution, and thus is ill-equipped
> to comment on why any politician would answer
> negatively to this question as posed.

I didn't ask the question.
The moderators of the 3 presidential debates mentioned in the OP, asked the question. The results indicate a steep increase in scientific denialism (delusion) over the 8 years between 2008 and 2016.
I never would have asked the question, "Do you believe in evolution?" because it's a stupid question.
Evolution isn't something you 'believe in', like I said in the O.P., it's a scientific theory that is so widely accepted and useful, that it's accepted as scientific fact and used to save lives every day, which you either accept or reject. If you don't accept scientific fact, I don't know how you passed 7th Grade science class and you should be denied medical treatment for your burst appendix or impacted molar until you claim Charles Darwin as your personal savior.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you
> don't accept scientific fact, I don't know how you
> passed 7th Grade science class and you should be
> denied medical treatment for your burst appendix
> or impacted molar until you claim Charles Darwin
> as your personal savior.

I don't know if this is hyperbole or you really believe this. Science is a religion for you and yet ironically you belittle people for whom have the same religious zeal as you, just not in the same things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2020 05:36PM by Elder Berry.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know if this is hyperbole or you really
> believe this. Science is a religion for you and
> yet ironically you belittle people for whom have
> the same religious zeal as you, just not in the
> same things.

Yes hyperbole.
I thought it was obvious, but I guess not to everybody.
I only belittle delusional people.

delusion: maintaining erroneous beliefs, despite superior evidence to the contrary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2020 05:56PM by schrodingerscat.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I only belittle delusional people.

Why?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I only belittle delusional people.
>
> Why?

I follow Ayan Hirsi Ali's admonition for getting through to believers who are enslaved by their own beliefs, "I cause CogDis, which will either drive them insane or drive them sane. I hope for the latter, which is all I can do after all."

I'm with her and Dawkins, religion is the root of evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nAos1M-_Ts



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2020 06:16PM by schrodingerscat.

I think you are confused.


"Q: So how would they do it?
A: Next to every mosque, build a Christian centre, an enlightenment centre, a feminist centre. There are tons of websites, financed with Saudi money, promoting Wahabism. We need to set up our own websites—Christian, feminist, humanist—trying to target the same people, saying, we have an alternative moral framework to Islam. We have better ideas."
https://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/why-christians-should-try-to-convert-muslims/

He is advocating conversion to other things.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you are confused.
>
>
> He is advocating conversion to other things.

He is a she and I'm the one who is confused? haha

I didn't know about them until your post. But you follow them so you are advocating conversion to Christianity. You are so confused.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't know about them until your post.

That explains everything I need to know about you.

Likewise.

Could you be any more oblivious?

Could you be anymore myopic in your opinions that you would think everyone would know what you do?

But like many here have pointed out. Insults are easier.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could you be anymore myopic in your opinions that
> you would think everyone would know what you do?
>
> But like many here have pointed out. Insults are
> easier.


You started insulting me for no fucking reason, by calling me confused, when you've never heard of Ayan Hirsi Ali. lol

Read a fucking book dude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel:_My_Life#Reception

You are confused and it isn't an insult. You say you espouse a reason for belittling people based on converting Muslims to Christianity.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are confused and it isn't an insult. You say
> you espouse a reason for belittling people based
> on converting Muslims to Christianity.


You put words in my mouth and Ayan Hirsi Ali's.
She's an atheist, who wrote the book, Infidel.

https://www.amazon.com/Infidel-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali/dp/0743289692

You have no logical basis to belittle people from this person's words. You came up with that on your own and search for people famous or marginally so to justify your abusive behaviors.

You create a pantheon of scientists to worship and yet you judge others as delusional.

You have serious problems with your own cognitive dissonance but you just don't know it. Continue worshiping that god on your dollar bills and belittle others who worship that same god in other forms. It seems to be something that helps you cope in life.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have no logical basis to belittle people from
> this person's words. You came up with that on your
> own and search for people famous or marginally so
> to justify your abusive behaviors.

WTF are you blathering on about? How do I belittle people? Mormons you mean? Doesn't everybody on this forum pretty much belittle Mormons? It seems like a healthy response from victims of abuse to belittle the people who enable the same kind of abuse to continue.

> You create a pantheon of scientists to worship and
> yet you judge others as delusional.

I don't worship anybody, but I do respect genius and I do respect wise men of the past, not just scientists, but philosophers and poets and sages. If I 'worship' anything it's the Tao, aka, the way of nature. And if people maintain erroneous beliefs, despite superior evidence to the contrary, that's the very definition of delusional. There's nothing wrong with making that judgement call, especially when that delusion enables evil.

> You have serious problems with your own cognitive
> dissonance but you just don't know it.

Awesome. I could say the same about you and it would be just as valid.

Continue
> worshiping that god on your dollar bills

Like I said, I don't worship god. I worship Tao.
I just don't have a huge problem with the word, 'god' being on our money or in our National Motto, because I think of it as synonymous with 'good' which I do trust in.

and
> belittle others who worship that same god in other
> forms.

I belittle abusers and those who enable them, most of whom are religious, so yeah, I call them out. That's a good thing.

It seems to be something that helps you
> cope in life.

Yeah it does actually.
It gives me courage to stand up to abusive assholes.

LOL! You belittle delusion people before and now they are abusers. When will you get it straight?

> If I 'worship' anything it's the Tao, aka, the way
> of nature.

> Like I said, I don't worship god. I worship Tao.

You poor man. You think the Tao is something to be worshiped.

I hope you haven't read those books, Kori, because the alternative--having read them without comprehension--is just sad.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > If I 'worship' anything it's the Tao, aka, the
> way
> > of nature.
>
> > Like I said, I don't worship god. I worship Tao.
>
>
> You poor man. You think the Tao is something to
> be worshiped.
>
> I hope you haven't read those books, Kori, because
> the alternative--having read them without
> comprehension--is just sad.

I don't worship it by praying to it. What I mean by 'worship' is I recognize the Tao in the way of nature, in the singularity maintaining super symmetrical balance between dark matter and dark energy, between matter and anti-matter, between gravity and radiation. I see it in the = in E=mc^2
I see it at work in the ever spinning electrons around atoms
just as I see it in the moon circling the Earth, once every 27 days, counter clockwise, ironically appearing to spin clockwise, while always facing us.
I see it in the way DNA is matched up with RNA.
I see it in fractal ferns and cruciferous dinner every night.
I see it in the sun orbiting the singularity at the center of our universe, and the earth orbiting the sun.
I see it in the rising tide twice a day.
like clockwork
I see it in the way our galaxies move through Laneakea,
toward the great attractor
eternal balance
eternal harmony
eternal mystery
I hear what Einstein called, "The music of the spheres"
and I stand in rapt awe.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness." Albert Einstein

"A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

― Albert Einstein

Realizing my part in that whole, and fulfilling that part, is how I worship.

https://www.forbes.com/quotes/190/#:~:text=He%20to%20whom%20the%20emotion,dead%3B%20his%20eyes%20are%20closed.

Pass the croutons.

"I recognize the Tao in the way of nature, in the singularity maintaining super symmetrical balance between dark matter and dark energy, between matter and anti-matter, between gravity and radiation. I see it in the = in E=mc^2

I see it at work in the ever spinning electrons around atoms
just as I see it in the moon circling the Earth, once every 27 days, counter clockwise, ironically appearing to spin clockwise, while always facing us.

I see it in the way DNA is matched up with RNA.

I see it in fractal ferns and cruciferous dinner every night.

I see it in the sun orbiting the singularity at the center of our universe, and the earth orbiting the sun.

I see it in the rising tide twice a day.
like clockwork

I see it in the way our galaxies move through Laneakea,
toward the great attractor

eternal balance

eternal harmony

eternal mystery

I hear what Einstein called, "The music of the spheres"
and I stand in rapt awe."



SCat has succinctly described himself to us in nary an uncertain term: it's all pure gold and we should respect him. We should also wonder how he gets by in life since he can't see anything ordinary, such as signal lights and street signs.

There's 'standing in awe' for us mere mortals, and then there's 'standing in rapt awe' for those of a finer constitution. Is it possible to stand in 'casual awe'?

Anyway, I am SO impressed!

He doesn't have a lot of respect or awe for us mere humans.

At last, some croutons!

The anti-intellectualism of the early Christian church drove European science nearly to extinction for about 800 years, from 400 CE to 1200 CE.

Hopefully we will recover from the current onslaught of willful ignorance more quickly.

Thank heaven for Islam, for without that repository of classical learning the Renaissance, the development of modern science, and the Enlightenment might not have occurred in Europe.

China might ultimately have experienced the first scientific and industrial revolutions. And where would we be then. . .

Islam did not provide the West with these texts (or rather, Islamic cultures did not). Look into it more deeply.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Much from Aristotle to early science was preserved by Islam. The materials were in the libraries and embodied in technology. Europe got them from those sources.

If you disagree, please provide evidence. A bald assertion is useless.

easier by far to live in the Dark Ages.
A place where there is only Belief, unchallenged by and safe from Evidence.
(Explains the hatred of Evidence -- which shakes their precious Belief Bubble)

Down with the Enlightenment!

---------

Actually, r e l a a x -- from this perspective it's plenty hilarious.

Bring your own popcorn. ;-D

What feels good trumps what requires energy and both sides information to process and might not feel good.

I like the double entendre, you strumpet!

I wish I could be the loquacious seditious kind but alas I can't write the songs that make the streets sing.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/dec/04/affair-fourteen-robert-darnton

Keep your white flowers to yourself, you sTrumpet!!!

Maybe I'll give one to that old dog as an olive branch.

He'd just gnaw on it till another tooth falls out.

Bismillah, let him go!!!