onegoodmove

Well, atleast they wont be elected.

The 2004 election showed you can't be too sure a terrible person won't be elected.

Much as I dislike Delay, he is right that these elections should not be based on candidates' views on evolution. Nobody is talking about important domestic issues or the huge deficit. Very few candidates have demonstrated a comprehensive grasp of the Iraq issue. They are debating topics that make little difference when it comes to how our government will be administered from the Oval Office.

It does however indicate the candidates grasp of science, and we should all know that we want a president who can make decisions using the evidence. Evolution is one such topic, would anyone want a president who believes in crystal swinging and or fortune telling? Sure they have nothing to do with what he does daily, but it sure is an indication of his mental process.

My twelve year old brother understands basic evolutionary biology. Its a very simplistic theory to grasp if you take ten minutes to look at it. What this really boils down to is ignorance of reality. What else do they not believe in? is the earth six thousand years old? How important is science and technology to the future of our civilization? To me its our only way forward. And I want the man(woman) who will be commanding the most powerful nation on earth into that future, to at least understand how the world works a little better than my twelve year old brother.

I agree partially with Steve in that I think there are much more important issues that need to be addressed in these debates, but at the same time, something like evolution is important because it relates to the future intellectual welfare of the country. US schoolchildren lag far behind other countries' kids in math and science, due in no small part to the anti-intellectual bent of those who are putting creationism into schoolbooks and mandating that local school boards can't teach actual scientific facts -- people who have been greatly encouraged for the past 6 years by our evangelical Christian president who is against stem-cell research and the teaching of evolution as fact because they don't jibe with his religious beliefs.

And would you really want to vote for someone who said something on the order of, "I don't believe that the earth goes round the sun because my scripture told me it doesn't"? I mean, that's pretty much what they're saying when they say they don't believe in evolution.

60% of Americans believe in the literal interpretations of Genesis.....WTF.

How does that happen, are there really that many Americans in the Evangelical nutters camp. I am a Christian and a fairly devout one at that but to believe in the literal truth of all the Bible and specifically the creation story in the face of scientific theory to the contrary is not only absurd and a form of heresy but also goes against centuries of church tradition.

And by the way, just to add my liberal anger, what the hell is Delay still doing appearing on Television? He should be in jail or so discredited he can't leave home.

Of course it's an important question. It's basically a litmus test for ignorance and anti-intellectualism. When presented with unarguable evidence clouded by so much fallacious counterargument, propaganda, and your own fundamental beliefs, does the unarguable evidence, the truth, win? If not, then this is not a person that should be representing or leading anything, much less a country.

How did Tom Delay ever become a bug exterminator? Was he completely clueless about bugs resistance to pesticides? What an incompetent boob.

I did like how he criticized that all the Republicans accepted global warming as fact and noted that it's the primary, not the general election. Is he implying that people should tow the party line in the primary and lie in the general election. What a neanderthal (I apologize to all neanderthals out there who are insulted by the comparison to a knuckle dragger like Delay).

I don't see the relevance of saying evolution isn't an important issue (oh, but it is!).

To say the scientific fact of evolution isn't a topic worthy of discussion is to say no form of science is worthy to discuss, considering how extensive the scientific fact of evolution extends. It reaches well beyond mere dinner table science discussion. It is necessary for anyone to affirm their inclination towards reason, as opposed to biblical lunacy, by just getting the damn question out of the way.

These Republicans candidates only say the scientific fact of evolution is a non-issue because of their myopic imaginations. They cannot even conceive of how, when things boil down to evidence, people would rather place their bets on the people who is for evidence as opposed to someone who's just going with his or her gut. And this is fundamentally because they don't accept in it. If they don't accept it, why would they even consider it a worthy topic?

It's one thing to disagree with something. But to declare it as automatically unworthy of mentioning/discussion because you disagree is DANGEROUS. No politician should be allowed to justify his or her stance on an issue with beliefs that it is unimportant, especially when the people they're going to be governing believe it is.

We don't need mere CANDIDATES telling us the questions we should be asking.

We don't need another intellectually limited, gut-feeling politician in our Presidential seat.

Fuck Republican candidates, and fuck any candidate who invokes the name of god for any reason other than what I can perceive as superficial "belief in belief."

I need grammar school.

Was anyone else amused by a discussion of the rejection of evolutionary theory and bible infalibility where people throw 'neanderthal' around as an insult.

Isn't the acceptance of neanderthals as a different / lesser species an admission of evolution at the subconcious level. I just found it funny.

So, Republicans think that Gays in the military is a mere distraction? An issue brough up only to score political points? Gosh, are these the same Republicans that told America that Gay marriage would destroy civilization as we know it in 2004?

look at the last five seconds Delay: "I dont believe in evolution". Matthews: "So ur a neanderthal"

Yes, a Neanderthal in a homosapien body. So in deed, the Neaderthal still live among us today. A long studied evolutionary question finally answered by Tom Delay. Oh, the irony.

The military has expelled many thousands of service people because they were gay.

Many of these people had been working on translating foreign intelligence information.

The average time to translate an Arabic message flagged as suspect is now about 30 days.

For all we know, these messages could contain information about upcoming attacks and terrorist operations, and we wouldn't even know until 4 weeks after the fact.

There is no two ways about it; the work that these people had been doing for the armed forces saved lives on a daily basis.

I felt like punching John McCain in the face when he said that the policy was working.

I really hope that Stewart, or even Keith O., call him on this one.

I hate to say this but....

"I agree with Tom Delay".

By having the Republicans affirm their creationism ("it's 'purpose' vs 'accident' -" shudder) you create an unnecessary religious divide which has no place in politics. The republicans are going for 'the godly folks' vs 'the heathens' which is precisely the kind of irrelevant and damaging (to democracy) use of religious memes which Jefferson explicitly tried to avoid.

These candidates really need to be asked point blank if they would support legislation to include Intelligent Design in the science curriculum. In its current form the question just opens up further possibilities for pandering and side-stepping.

Duncan,

Your point is well-taken, but unfortunately the "unnecessary religious divide" is one that Tom Delay nurtured for the better part of his miserable career - he is only taking the high road here because he senses that the GOP is being made to look foolish.

What is equally unfortunate is that I have come to believe that the "evolution question" may actually be an important litmus test after all. That is because the root cause for the election and reelection of the disastrous current White House occupant is his Christian fundamentalist base - people whose sense of accountability is warped and whose comfort with authoritarian government is frightening.

So I suspect that we are in complete agreement on the big point: the mix of religion and politics threatens democracy. Before Bush, I considered myself a political centrist - in fact, I still do. Unfortunately, the religious right has succeeded in its program of polarization, and the answers these jackasses give to "evolution question" is diagnostic of the stranglehold that the religious right still holds over the GOP. As long as I feel that fundamentalists control the GOP, I won't vote for any Republican who doesn't both give a rational answer to the evolution question and stand up explicitly in opposition to the crazies who have hijacked the party.

Personally, the thing Delay did that bothered me the most was his accusation of a CNN smear campaign. When Matthews told him that this question had been called in by an audience member of the previous debate he completely ignored it and kept repeating his talking points about CNN and the democrats trying to make them look bad. And how can the issue of expelling qualified personnel from the army over their gender identity during what they themselves call a "real war" and a "transcendent battle between good and evil" not be a relevant question?

My first question is why are we listening to what Tom Delay has to say about anything? If the questions posed to the candidates paints them out to be Neanderthals then who is at fault: the questioner or the men who hold views completely at odds with 21st century thought? Since when does it matter that politicians talk about what matters most to the American people? For 5 ½ years all we can talk about is terrorism and this is a fringe issue, at best. It should be a minor function of law enforcement and the CIA but it has been high-jacked to scare the living shit out of ma and pa red state so that they will ignore the issues that really have a bearing on their lives—like health care, good jobs, and education.

Asking these morons whether or not they believe in one of the major tenets of modern biology is a great way to show just how willfully ignorant and unfit they are for any sort of government service—let alone the presidency. I think we may have finally rounded an important milestone in this country when this sort of religious lunacy is seen as a liability and not an asset.

After Chris Matthews called Delay a Neanderthal I pictured the next scene being Matthews in a restaurant with the GEICO Neanderthal attempting to apologize for putting him in the same category with Tom DeLay.

So, if Delay "believes" in neanderthals or not (and it certainly is funny that he brought that up while not "believing" in evolution), he conceded that the modern Republican party and its candidates are way, way backwards in their opinions. Even their ex-leader admits that the Grand Old Party is now the Grand Senile Party. No offence to seniors, of course.

Descended from primates? We ARE primates.

This dimension blows. Can someone point me to the one where there is no need for a government and everyone lives self-sufficient creative lives filled with psychedelic drugs and video games?

I wonder the percentage of evolution deniers would be that actually understand it. 5%, 1%?????

Delay is so full of crap. CNN is the one pushing the Republicans to talk about evolution, gays in the military, and abortion? Huckabee had a 2 minute speech prepared on evolution. Read the National Review online sometime--all they want to talk about is Romney or Guiliani and abortion or gay rights.

Then Delay turns around and says he's disappointed that no one professed disbelief in human-enduced global warming. Delay's so twisted he could tie a knot in a drip from a faucet.

CNN asked John Edwards what his biggest sin is. And the GOP embarrased to talk about evolution?

It's all about ego with these people who won't believe in evolution. Very little to do with religion and everything to do with their dignity, i.e., "I didn't come from no damn monkey!"

It has nothing to do with God, it's just beneath them, an insult.

So instead they make up a being who is the all-powerful ruler of the universe and say "Yeah, I came from HIM."

God created this "RPC" for one purpose: To be a idiot.

"...and by the way, I don't believe in the evolution."

"The evolution."

Priceless.

What I don't understand is how in this country is it possible to state such idiocies about objective knowledge (next thing they'll deny is the periodic table of elements ??) and taking mythology for fact being considered a virtuous thing by half or more of the population ?

Not that holding such beliefs should be forbidden by law, of course not, but I think it should be an embarrassment to say it out loud on a news channel. I think it actually would be in any other G8 country.

How did it get to this ?

Baghdad was the world capital of science and philosophy circa 800-1100 CE, but they lost it when they let religion kick everything out of the public place. The arab world had its Dark Ages AFTER its Golden Age. It could very well happen to the States, after being the leader it has been in many scientific fields during the 20th century, the critical mass of bible freaks might well sink it into a society of ignorance and superstition.

"Sunday school" gives school a bad name.

Homo sapiens neanderthalis had bigger brains than us (I seem to remember something like 2000cc rather than 1600cc on average); I think this on its own suggests they would be insulted to be in the company of Tom Delay...