onegoodmove

I think that is an unfair assertion... he is a person of faith that does not buy the pseudo consensus in science for macro evolution. Considering his life has been spent in civic duty and applying himself to practical issues relating to human concerns, I think it is fair to say he is highly competent in the areas that matter the most for a Presidential candidate.

Chuk: You are in too deep for your own good, get out now before you get your creationist-troll ass handed to you. (Quick, it's a black peppered moth on an unpolluted tree, get him!)

"pseudo consensus" - I would like to see where scientists differ on the consensus, can I see some links here (and please don't link to Discovery Institute or Answers in Genisis). And before you go linking any stories about the recent stories about when humans diverged from our ancestors, go read this

"Considering his life has been spent in civic duty" - Yeah, all those years of advertising and preaching to a church are really indicative of how he would run the white house.

"I think it is fair to say he is highly competent in the areas that matter the most for a Presidential candidate." Where, how? I'd LOVE to have a president who actually KNOWS 8th grade science, rather than flatly reject it based on his distrust for science, which i bet also leads to his distrust for public education, which is in dire need of more funding, which he would NEVER give to our underfunded teachers.

I'm no Huckabee (or any GOP) fan, but if there anything to be redeemed here by his lack of knowledge and his civic duties, its that the truly believes what he says. I know I believe in evolution, but I havent studied it to the point where I'm an expert. If someone with more knowledge than me of the subject tried to debate me, I'd probably lose. I think a lot of polticians get criticized unfairly for not knowing enough, but keep in mind that once you're in the system its not a matter of what the scientists say, but a matter of keeping your job so you learn as much as you can about the things that your possible voters want you to know about - - in this case, Baby Jesus, Church Hymns and How to say Islamic Terrorists in 239 different ways.

Not trolling, just an opinion.

Like Bill Mahr says it's about "assessing one's rational" regarding their take on evolution.

"None of us are running to be an 8th grade science teacher"... dumbass. Try "Everyone who runs should know at least more science than an 8th grade student in ALL other modern countries" The question would be stupid if these idiots weren't trying to push religion into schools, and worse, corrupt the science education of children. That's why the question is indeed silly when asked to (most) democrats.

And how can people trust these numbnuts to make a clear and rational decision on something as important as stem cell research and gay discrimination if they can't even avoid being clouded by their cuddly self-imposed ignorance on such an established non-controversial matter for all educated people in the world (not only scientists) as is evolution.

He was asked the question about evolution a couple of months ago in a debate. He could at least educate himself. That he apparently believes ignorance on such a topic is okay is what's telling. I think we have a right to expect someone seeking the highest office in the land has some basic understanding of the subject, what other gaps does he have in his scientific education. If he want's to pump gas or preach to the 'sheep' that's fine but president of the United States I think requires more, at least more informed than an eighth grade science student.

If 8th grade science is too much for him, does it mean we'll be balancing the budget with pre-algebra?

He is obviosly a creationist asshole, no question about that... but, with this appearence I am sure he got a ton of votes from moderate democrats. He did a pretty good job in this interview from a PPRR point of view.

It's not a question of "believing" in evolution - it is a fact. It can be observed happening, right in front of you. It cannot be denied.

If he is saying that he doesn't believe Darwinian natural selection to be the explanation for this then fine - the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodley appendage is behind each mutation.

But if he was referring to Darwinian natural selection then why did he imply that its results are down to chance?

I'm very confused. I don't think he really understands what he's saying.

P.S. Death anxiety empirically tied to nationalism:

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070827&s=judis082707

@Andy: That link is fantastic. Norm, this definately should be in Tuesdays Links. Some of the most interesting studies i've heard about since my sociology classes in college.

On some things, I am willing to give Huckabee the benefit of doubt.

He was raised baptist and went to baptist schools and seminaries. But what I sense with him is that he has himself discovered doubt.

I wonder if he really even believes any more, but is just putting on a brave face for the xian gallery. He certainly has the credentials to attract them.

Of course his idea of the "fair" tax is completely erroneous and counter-productive, and will certainly not help modest families. But some of his other proposals and his actions as governor were not so bad.

Still, I wonder if he isn't at least a closet agnostic. Let's not go so far as to say atheist.

The thing with these faith-heads is not that they don't doubt, but that they see doubt as the evil handiwork of the devil and something to be "overcome" rather than embraced and actually inquired about. More inquiries will lead you to more doubt, so they just stop asking. And when they do "overcome" doubt, they shout it from the rooftops as a great victory.

If you saw the whole episode, there's a part where they discuss that mama teresa had some "doubt" and both Tim Robbins and the NPR lady defended it like any religious apologist would. "Even Jesus doubted", "overcoming doubt" and crap like that. That's stone-age bullshit. Any rational person with some respect to free inquiry will welcome doubt, try to solve it, and when more doubt comes, will embrace the learning. Or, as goes some song... "I'd rather walk with a doubt than with a bad axiom".

This is starting to make a whole lot more sense, now... If you think 8th grade science is taxing or irrelevant then it isn't too much of a stretch to -- well, whatever the grand old party happens to be up to at the moment (which of course will be what the democrats will be up to, as soon as the poll numbers come around).

"Quick, it's a black peppered moth on an unpolluted tree..." Heheh -- nice one, dude.

Wait... Republicans are for strong families? What's with all the wars, then? Maybe they mean they want people to stay together and procreate so more soldiers are born.

Yes, DaniR, but Bill made his own booboo when equating evolution with human evolution. There are so many better, less loaded examples like drug-resistance, for example. Did he also say we evolved from apes? Another booboo because apes live now. Huckabee didn't get riled up about it, but just came across sounding a bit like a day-age creationist.

I can't defend someone who says they don't believe in evolution - sorry Huckabee --- but...what I heard him say was he felt it was a question loaded with other implications, that he didn't like the process of raising his hand or just answering yes or no at a Presidential public debate and I actually think that's fair. I think that's part of the infotainment/soundbiting of the American brain. There is shorthand now for what demographic the candidate wants to support him and maybe he would've liked to give some more complex answers. Personally, I am more interested in someone's views on taxes, healthcare, corporations and the environment and that's what I would like questions about.....and I guess that's shorthand for a liberal

I half-agree with Huckabee that asking the question in the debate was silly. I cease to agree with him when he asserts that that should be a discriminator in chosing the next leader of the most powerful country in the world. Bill M. was completely correct in that statement. What was silly about the question is that we, as the richest, most technologically advanced and most powerful country in the developed world actually have a significant number of the population who think that "Do you believe in evolution?" is even something that should be debated in a Presidential election! I think it is equivacable to asking if the candidate supports the burning of witches or the notion that the earth is the center of the universe. If we still expect candidates to have a debatable view of scientifically proven facts, like evolution, then we are asking for creationist, USA embarrasing idiots (see the current incumbent), to be considered as prospectively appropriate leaders of this nation. We are getting exactly the government we deserve if we continue to think that a creationist's views of origins and science is a valid issue that should be asked in a debate. That is a truly rediculous question to be asking.

I'm surprised Maher asked the question seeing as how he thinks he is God. It seemed that Huckabee answers with what he believes - he acknowledges evolution but reserves the right to also believe in God - and has reconciled this by attributing the design of evolution to God, and makes a good point in saying "so what."

"Huckabee" is old english for "Bo-Tard".

I'm not so sure I think Bill Maher was the best man to be on the scientific side of this argument. Recently, without any hesitation, he told David Letterman that maple syrup could not be used to fuel vehicles, being so presumptuous as to add "do I have to come back here and teach you science, Dave?"

Now I'm not, personally, sure whether you could or couldn't (and probably not very efficiently by any means), but my friends who also were watching all had the same thought, which is, how can he be so sure...it contains plenty of sugars.