• Sharebar

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/evolution_gop...

A vote for Perry, Bachmann, or Santorum is a vote against science and reason. Bachmann's quotes on the subject are pretty fucking remarkable for their stupidity.

For the GOP's sake, and the sake of America, I hope they nominate Paul, Huntsman, or even Romney. Given the media's obsession with Perry, I'm not sure that's going to happen.

Comments (181)

  • In The Flesh's picture

    In the grand scheme of things, I don't think a candidate's views on evolution don't matter much. Honestly, so what? I'd rather focus on what the policy plans are. But in today's media climate (all screaming and no discussing), policy doesn't seem to matter much either.

    Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

  • In reply to In The Flesh
    Nobama88's picture

    In The Flesh wrote:
    In the grand scheme of things, I don't think a candidate's views on evolution don't matter much. Honestly, so what? I'd rather focus on what the policy plans are. But in today's media climate (all screaming and no discussing), policy doesn't seem to matter much either.

    +1

    I dont understand what the problem is if they do not believe in Evolution. How is that going to effect any kind of policy? There are a lot of reasons to not vote for them. Not believing in evolution should not be one.

  • In reply to Nobama88
    awm55's picture

    Nobama88 wrote:
    In The Flesh wrote:
    In the grand scheme of things, I don't think a candidate's views on evolution don't matter much. Honestly, so what? I'd rather focus on what the policy plans are. But in today's media climate (all screaming and no discussing), policy doesn't seem to matter much either.

    +1

    I dont understand what the problem is if they do not believe in Evolution. How is that going to effect any kind of policy? There are a lot of reasons to not vote for them. Not believing in evolution should not be one.

    These are the same people that would want to push faith based education in schools. These sort of positions matter enormously.

  • TheKing's picture

    This sort of shit absolutely effects policy. i.e.) stem cell research, education policy, etc.

    Beyond that, give me a fucking break. It reflects their inability to process facts and information that goes against something they previously believed in (regardless of it being true or not.) The whole, "I won't let facts get in the way of my beliefs" mentality is a problem.

    Beyond that, it's just retarded. Gravity is a "theory" with some holes in it (blackhole singularities), does that mean these people are going to walk out of a window on the 20th floor of a building?

  • In reply to LIBOR
    rafiki's picture

    <a href="http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/finance-dictionary/what-is-london-interbank-offer-rate-libor" rel="nofollow">LIBOR</a> wrote:
    Actually, to me, this is the single most important part of their platform, and the main reason why I would not even look at the rest of their platform. Any candidate that doesn't believe in evolution, or that supports intelligent designed, is automatically dinged in my book.

    At the risk of being pedantic, Romney's position is what Intelligent Design implies, using an outside force to explain the observed and proven fact of evolution. This would be equivalent to claiming an outside force causes gravity as opposed to gravitons as implied by current models of the universe. Huntsman, probably Newt and possibly Paul, depending on what they meant with their statements seem to understand what the Theory of Evolution actually implies, but the rest seem to be just denying facts.

  • In reply to awm55
    In The Flesh's picture

    awm55 wrote:
    Nobama88 wrote:
    In The Flesh wrote:
    In the grand scheme of things, I don't think a candidate's views on evolution don't matter much. Honestly, so what? I'd rather focus on what the policy plans are. But in today's media climate (all screaming and no discussing), policy doesn't seem to matter much either.

    +1

    I dont understand what the problem is if they do not believe in Evolution. How is that going to effect any kind of policy? There are a lot of reasons to not vote for them. Not believing in evolution should not be one.

    These are the same people that would want to push faith based education in schools. These sort of positions matter enormously.

    Not necessarily. I think you'll find that the most common position is that both viewpoints should be taught so that thje kids can make up their own minds. That would be ideal, because both ideas would get heard, there wouldn't be any shrieking about brainwashing, and it would be removed as an electoral issue so we can get back to arguing with each other about more important things, like taxes. :)

    Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

  • Michael Scarn's picture

    This matters immensely, denying evolution shows they refute science and progress. If a candidate isn't smart enough to correctly analyze the data on something as simple and with as much of a scientific consensus as evolution, how are we supposed to trust them with any of the more complicated issues that presidents deal with daily?

  • In reply to Michael Scarn
    blastoise's picture

    Michael Scarn wrote:
    This matters immensely, denying evolution shows they refute science and progress. If a candidate isn't smart enough to correctly analyze the data on something as simple and with as much of a scientific consensus as evolution, how are we supposed to trust them with any of the more complicated issues that presidents deal with daily?

    If god(s) do not exist then you must do so say or reveal logic to prove your beliefs. Until then I will continue to believe that there must be something that created everything, because there is no logical conclusion to draw from science to bring forth a counter proof to move my motivation of contemplation to a ratification.

  • In reply to blastoise
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    blastoise wrote:
    Michael Scarn wrote:
    This matters immensely, denying evolution shows they refute science and progress. If a candidate isn't smart enough to correctly analyze the data on something as simple and with as much of a scientific consensus as evolution, how are we supposed to trust them with any of the more complicated issues that presidents deal with daily?

    If god(s) do not exist then you must do so say or reveal logic to prove your beliefs. Until then I will continue to believe that there must be something that created everything, because there is no logical conclusion to draw from science to bring forth a counter proof to move my motivation of contemplation to a ratification.


    So let me get this straight. I have to PROVE to you with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that there is a god. Seems to me someone who desires PROOF and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE wouldn't necessarily be on the side of the 'almighty creator'

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    blastoise's picture

    happypantsmcgee wrote:
    blastoise wrote:
    Michael Scarn wrote:
    This matters immensely, denying evolution shows they refute science and progress. If a candidate isn't smart enough to correctly analyze the data on something as simple and with as much of a scientific consensus as evolution, how are we supposed to trust them with any of the more complicated issues that presidents deal with daily?

    If god(s) do not exist then you must do so say or reveal logic to prove your beliefs. Until then I will continue to believe that there must be something that created everything, because there is no logical conclusion to draw from science to bring forth a counter proof to move my motivation of contemplation to a ratification.

    So let me get this straight. I have to PROVE to you with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that there is a god. Seems to me someone who desires PROOF and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE wouldn't necessarily be on the side of the 'almighty creator'

    No, one must hence fourth reveal logic that disproves god(s) with on all reasonable doubt. Until then there is a God. For one does not need to prove a creator exists since he/she is around us for it your position that holds the stance of abolitionism of dissolution in this stance on all indefatigable entities from which we hence forth came.

  • Nobama88's picture

    Some love to scream about how stupid and illogical people 'clinging to their bibles' are, but the only logical conclusion to ANY science out there is that something had to create everything.

    Sooo...If a candidate isn't smart enough to correctly analyze the data on something as simple and with as much of a scientific consensus as something has to come from somewhere, how are we supposed to trust them with any of the more complicated issues that presidents deal with daily?

  • TNA's picture

    Wow, another religious hating post by TheKing.

    1) Who gives a shit if they believe or not.

    2) Who fucking cares if the government funds stem cell research. As long as they do not make it illegal private parties can fund it.

    3) For everyone that shits on religion, I am waiting to see evolution and atheism comfort someone who is dying or help a grieving family. If a "fairy tale" helps a wife who lost her husband or comforts someone who is going through a horrible time in their life, then it is without a doubt better than the "truth".

    I love how liberals cry about the rights of all these poor, oppressed groups, but they cannot stop themselves from shitting on and wanting to oppress people who hold views unlike themselves.

  • UFOinsider's picture

    God created the big bang, you're welcome. Next topic.

    Get busy living

  • TNA's picture

    Neither are electable.

    They are just pandering to a small part of their party. Just like Obama was pretty far left when he started, all move to the center as time goes on.

    I personally don't want the government funding any of this shit. Who says Stem Cells are the best thing to research? Ya know. I mean maybe something else is key, but people are ignoring it because government money is too lucrative.

    Market distortions.

  • heister's picture

    For fucks sake who cares if they believe in the boogey man or not. Quit being an asshat and trying to start political debates about things no one gives a fuck about.

    Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

    Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

  • In reply to TNA
    ThaVanBurenBoyz's picture

    ANT wrote:

    3) For everyone that shits on religion, I am waiting to see evolution and atheism comfort someone who is dying or help a grieving family. If a "fairy tale" helps a wife who lost her husband or comforts someone who is going through a horrible time in their life, then it is without a doubt better than the "truth".

    Holy shit, people need to get comfortable with existential ambiguity. It's awfully weak-minded to hold religion above the pursuit of truth because it provides an intellectual prozac in times of emotional and mental vulnerability.

  • seedy underbelly's picture

    Quote:
    I personally don't want the government funding any of this shit. Who says Stem Cells are the best thing to research? Ya know. I mean maybe something else is key, but people are ignoring it because government money is too lucrative.

    ^ You can't be serious. Stem-cell research is the future.

    IMO, if the government should spend money on anything, it should be R&D (research and development). Innovations got America where it is today and they can restore its greatness in the future as well. Just imagine, if he have another internet-like breakthrough, the demand created would solve the recession in a matter of months.

    That's why promoting STEM majors is so important as well - they lead to innovation. And America, again, badly needs someone to innovate right now.

  • streetwannabe's picture

    It is immensely important in whether or not they believe in creationism! If you believe in creationism in America, usually you are Christian. Therefore it is safe to assume that these people will have very different stances on abortion, global warming, teaching science in school, stem cell research, etc. Most stances that people with religious views take is not one guided by reason, but their own faith. Or even worse, how they interpret it.

    and ANT; telling people that their spouse/friend/child went to heaven or telling that dying person that does not make anything easier. If they believe they will go to heaven then they already do, but it will not change anything for them (the fact that they are dying) or people who lose them. Atheism isn't meant to comfort people, and if you perhaps don't believe in an afterlife, you just might be a little more appreciative and aware of this one.

    "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

  • In reply to ThaVanBurenBoyz
    TNA's picture

    ThaVanBurenBoyz wrote:
    ANT wrote:

    3) For everyone that shits on religion, I am waiting to see evolution and atheism comfort someone who is dying or help a grieving family. If a "fairy tale" helps a wife who lost her husband or comforts someone who is going through a horrible time in their life, then it is without a doubt better than the "truth".

    Holy shit, people need to get comfortable with existential ambiguity. It's awfully weak-minded to hold religion above the pursuit of truth because it provides an intellectual prozac in times of emotional and mental vulnerability.

    Weak minded huh? I believe it takes a strong mind to believe in something that cannot be proven, especially when there are insulting cunts out there who chortle because they think something is silly.

    Why should the government fund stem cells and why are they better than other research areas? I didn't realize it was the government that should be making allocation decisions.

    http://blog.bioethics.net/2007/08/whos-funding-ste...

    The private sector is spending the most and they should be the ones deciding to spend it. My tax dollars should go to national defense and other ACTIUAL jobs of a federal government. Some people don't agree with using dead fetuses for research. Last time I checked we try and respect everyone's opinion and belief.

    Oh and someone who believes in religion is unfit to be president? How wonderfully tolerant. Sorry that I disagree, I mean I support respecting everyone, including people who believe in God.

    Oh that's right, humans know everything and we have never believed something to be scientifically true and then proven otherwise.

  • In reply to streetwannabe
    TNA's picture

    streetwannabe wrote:
    It is immensely important in whether or not they believe in creationism! If you believe in creationism in America, usually you are Christian. Therefore it is safe to assume that these people will have very different stances on abortion, global warming, teaching science in school, stem cell research, etc. Most stances that people with religious views take is not one guided by reason, but their own faith. Or even worse, how they interpret it.

    and ANT; telling people that their spouse/friend/child went to heaven or telling that dying person that does not make anything easier. If they believe they will go to heaven then they already do, but it will not change anything for them (the fact that they are dying) or people who lose them. Atheism isn't meant to comfort people, and if you perhaps don't believe in an afterlife, you just might be a little more appreciative and aware of this one.

    Guided by reason? This country is guided by the mother fucking constitution and bill of rights. Last time I checked people are allowed to have any religious beliefs. You don't want the President or government telling schools what they should teach? Well me either, hence my desire for a smaller government and more liberty.

  • TNA's picture

    Or it will put more people out of work.

    You don't think strong is the right word? Most of the people who believe in evolution know very little about it. They were taught the basics in science class and because it is science they roll with it.

    If you think that the government setting wages is a good idea, you are nuts. People blow off minimum wage jobs all the time. Do you think they would even bother if wages dropped to 3 bucks an hour? Get real. Wages are set by people who are willing to do them.

    The entire argument you hear from the left supporting illegal immigration is that they do jobs Americans wont. McDonalds would pay 7 bucks an hour with our without the government interfering.

  • ThaVanBurenBoyz's picture

    ANT, I never said it was weak-minded to believe in the unproven. And I don't claim that there isn't a God, nor do I think anyone is less intelligent because they believe in a God.

    You said that religion is better than the "truth" (or atheism and evolution), because it comforts those in times of death. I don't think I could come up with a better illustration of weak-mindedness. How could the pursuit of truth be less valuable than an emotional crutch? Just because one finds themselves in a vulnerable state? That's insulting as a human being.

  • TNA's picture

    How people can complain about the government forcing religion in schools, fighting wars in 3 countries and the patriot act, but at the same time want government to set prices, teach only evolution and fund stem cell research is beyond me.

    More government means more good if you believe one thing or more bad if you believe another. How about we just live and let live and shrink this fucking beast so we wont have to complain about it interfering anymore.

  • TNA's picture

    I didn't mean the chortling cunt comment at you BTW.

    Science is great. Finding the truth is great. I support and encourage it all. But to shit on religion or religious people, without seeing the good within it is awfully closed minded.

    The theory of evolution will change and adapt as more information is uncovered. The majority of people who believe in it and look down on creationism couldn't explain evolution past "we came from monkeys". If you want to believe in evolution ,fine, but actually learn the details about it. Otherwise you are just believe what someone else tells you which is basically the same thing as believe in a creator.

  • In reply to TNA
    awm55's picture

    ANT wrote:
    How people can complain about the government forcing religion in schools, fighting wars in 3 countries and the patriot act, but at the same time want government to set prices, teach only evolution and fund stem cell research is beyond me.

    More government means more good if you believe one thing or more bad if you believe another. How about we just live and let live and shrink this fucking beast so we wont have to complain about it interfering anymore.

    The government cannot force one religion in school, that is the problem. This is not Iran.

    The beauty of science is that it is a universal language, and its not clouded by the scientists bias belief system. There is research and a background of evidence and fact to back-up scientific teachings, you want to incorporate intelligent design because it supports the religious beliefs that YOU were brought up to believe were the absolute truth. In addition, there is scientific evidence to support the usefulness of stem cell research.

  • In reply to TNA
    awm55's picture

    ANT wrote:
    I didn't mean the chortling cunt comment at you BTW.

    Science is great. Finding the truth is great. I support and encourage it all. But to shit on religion or religious people, without seeing the good within it is awfully closed minded.

    The theory of evolution will change and adapt as more information is uncovered. The majority of people who believe in it and look down on creationism couldn't explain evolution past "we came from monkeys". If you want to believe in evolution ,fine, but actually learn the details about it. Otherwise you are just believe what someone else tells you which is basically the same thing as believe in a creator.

    The only issue I have with religion is that you guys throw out or forget the hundreds of crazy things said in the bible and cherry pick the ideas that could still apply or be believable in a modern context. As society progresses, more and more of the shit said in the Bible is going out of fashion as civil liberties are expanded. You guys will fight tooth and nail to prevent that, and that is why many people hate bible humping religious conservatives.

  • TNA's picture

    Wow, please FUCKING quote where I said I want to to the following:

    1) Teach Intelligent Design

    2) Teach religion in school

    I really want to see where I said either.

    Yes, there is plenty of usefulness to support researching stem cells. I personally support it. I don't support the GOVERNMENT supporting it.

    Let the private enterprise fund it, which they are already doing.

  • In reply to TNA
    awm55's picture

    ANT wrote:
    Wow, please FUCKING quote where I said I want to to the following:

    1) Teach Intelligent Design

    2) Teach religion in school

    I really want to see where I said either.

    Yes, there is plenty of usefulness to support researching stem cells. I personally support it. I don't support the GOVERNMENT supporting it.

    Let the private enterprise fund it, which they are already doing.

    The government has an interest in protecting public health. Most major medical research is at least partly funded by the government. You want profit driven companies to determine what medical research deserves funding? Why would a private company fund research for diseases that are not lucrative for the company to treat?

  • TNA's picture

    Public health?

    That is polio, the flu, measles, etc.

    Most major medical research is funded by universities and private companies. If something doesn't affect many people why should we focus on it?

    Kind of like HIV research. How many more people die of illnesses that are not easily preventable. I mean a 25 cent condom and regular blood tests would reduce the spread of HIV, but we spend an enormous amount on it because of a vocal and highly affected group.

    God forbid people wore condoms when they had sex. I mean too much to ask that someone practices safe sex.

  • In reply to TNA
    awm55's picture

    ANT wrote:
    Public health?

    That is polio, the flu, measles, etc.

    Most major medical research is funded by universities and private companies. If something doesn't affect many people why should we focus on it?

    Kind of like HIV research. How many more people die of illnesses that are not easily preventable. I mean a 25 cent condom and regular blood tests would reduce the spread of HIV, but we spend an enormous amount on it because of a vocal and highly affected group.

    God forbid people wore condoms when they had sex. I mean too much to ask that someone practices safe sex.

    I agree HIV research funding could be spent better elsewhere.

    "If something doesn't affect many people why should we focus on it?"

    So those people should just wallow in the fact that they have a disease that is rare and not profitable for companies to research and treat?

  • In reply to TNA
    awm55's picture

    ANT wrote:
    Dude, you know that there are tons of biotech companies looking at all kinds of rare diseases.

    The government funds populace crap, not real stuff.

    C'mon man, you know government funding isn't going to anything but headline illnesses.

    Just looked at the numbers, the government funds 36% of medical research. It also funds about 20% of military research. Do you support the latter?

  • In reply to TNA
    awm55's picture

    ANT wrote:
    AWM

    1) I 100% support military spending. It is the actual job of the Federal Government and something that the private sector cannot fund or manage.

    2) I am doing some due diligence on government medical spending. Give me 5 minutes.

    I think most citizens of the USA would prefer the government to support medical research and not research in the most efficient ways to kill people.

Pages