Could you vote for someone who did not believe in evolution?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Could you vote for someone who did not believe in evolution?

Congratulations, you have found the hidden text!

[Liberal Veteran]

1. The way I see it, is someone who puts their faith above fact...

...is someone I cannot trust to be in office.

[ZombieHorde]

3. There may be some logic to that.

[StopTheMadness]

6. suspending logic makes her just like other loonies

exactly. in suspending logical thought and clinging to myth, she's no different from the taliban. (by the way, liberal veteran, i love the pix of your cats!

[Mojambo]

2. It would depend on why they don't believe in evolution I think.

And whether or how their disbelief in evolution would affect the decisions they had to make in whatever capacity they are seeking to fill.

My town dog-catcher doesn't need to believe in evolution. The head of the department of education would.

[ZombieHorde]

7. My town dog-catcher

Is that an elected position?

[Mojambo]

8. In some places it is, or at least used to be. n/t

[StopTheMadness]

4. palin: the earth is flat

Palin also doesn't believe in global warming or that pesky rumor about gravity.

[melody]

5. You have to have critical thinking skills to hold public office

If she/he doesn't at least accept that evolution is the likely mechanism of special development, then they are not
capable of holding office. That is where the evidence is at. Now, there's plenty of room to postulate a spiritual
life but one should always base one's decisions on established fact not fairy tales.

[Johonny]

27. I agree

public policy is a scientific experiment on my life, I want my public policy experiments soundly based on the scientific process.

[Ms. Toad]

9. Define "believe in evolution."

Evolution and intelligent design are often spoken of as if they describe the same thing. They do not.

Evolution describes the mechanism(s) by which the different species came into existence and changed over time, but is silent as to the inspiration, for lack of a better word, for that mechanism.

Intelligent design describes the inspiration, but not the mechanism. (Anything that complex must have required an intelligent designer.)

I happen to believe the two are complementary. I see it less with evolution since that is not my area of study, but I see it clearly with mathematics and physics. It is impossible for me to imagine that the elegance with which these disciplines describe the physical world around occurred by accident. That doesn't mean I reject the elegant descriptions (the equivalence of rejecting evolution), it just means that I (personally) believe there was an intelligent designer which made the elegance possible. The former should be taught in schools, the later explored in church and/or the home.

So - if by not believing in evolution you mean believing intelligent design to the exclusion of accepting evolution as a good description of what we have observed over time about species change and differentiation, that would be a strike against voting for such a person.

If you mean believing that there is some form of intelligent designer guiding the evolutionary process, that doesn't bother me a bit, so long as evolution is accepted as a good description - and the politician accepts that intelligent design is a matter of faith, not science.

[ZombieHorde]

10. This poll has nothing to do with religious beliefs, it is about accepting the theory of evolution.

It is impossible for me to imagine that the elegance with which these disciplines describe the physical world around occurred by accident.

I am sorry to read that your imagination is so limited.

Anything that complex must have required an intelligent designer.

Why do you believe this?

[Ms. Toad]

14. I agree it has nothing to do with religious beliefs,

Unfortunately, it has been co-opted by the religious right which has twisted it so that unfortunately even reasonably smart people do not always understand that evolution and intelligent design describe two different aspects of how we got where we are today. Evolution belongs in the schools; intelligent design is consistent with the teaching of evolution, but is entirely faith based and is totally unnecessary to completely understand the science of evolution.

As far as the remainder of your post, as to the first, nice attack. As to the second, it is a matter of faith. I have spent considerable time studying mathematics and physics and/or observing the complex patterns and relationships that appear and repeat over and over again in nature. Given that any system left alone tends toward chaos, the persistence of order - even elegant order - in the world surrounding supports the spiritual center that has been a part of my life for at least 40 years, and explains things which science describes well but about which it is silent as to the reason such complex matters are capable of being described so simply and elegantly.

It doesn't matter to me whether you share my belief, or not. I want the science taught in schools (and recognized by whatever policy decisions the politicians implement), and I want exploring the faith aspects (such as intelligent design) left to faith communities and/or families (and banned from schools - except perhaps as part of a course of study in comparative religions.

My primary intent was to point out that evolution is not the opposite of intelligent design (the poll didn't say it was - but discussions like this almost always head that direction). If you believe there is an intelligent designer, such a designer could just as easily create land critters by minor insignificant changes and adaptations to sea critters over time (evolution) as it could by grabbing a lump of clay and making the land critter from scratch (creationism). The description of the mechanism taught in our schools must be science based (i.e. evolution is, creationism isn't). Intelligent design is entirely a faith based construct, adds nothing to the science based description of the mechanism by which we got to where we are today, and has no place in the schools.

[ZombieHorde]

20. as to the first, nice attack

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I am just not mature enough.

Given that any system left alone tends toward chaos, the persistence of order - even elegant order

I don't believe in order and chaos as actual things. I think that they are just a way to categorize the world around us, just like the alphabet.

My primary intent was to point out that evolution is not the opposite of intelligent design

I believe that this is the Catholic Church's stance on the issue of evolution. The now say that The Book of Genesis is about the Human soul, as opposed to the flesh. I am not Christian, but I think that that is a cool way of looking at that book.

The description of the mechanism taught in our schools must be science based

I agree.

and banned from schools

I have no problems with student run religious clubs after school, or during lunch. What do you think?

[Ms. Toad]

24. Mixed feelings.

>>I have no problems with student run religious clubs after school, or during lunch. What do you think?<<

In theory - as long as atheist, wiccan, etc. clubs are allowed I don't have a problem with it. In reality, its hard to get a club going without sponsorship by a teacher - and - schools tend to be selective as to what is allowed.

As a practical matter, as long as it is kept out of the classroom I tend to stay out of that level of activism. This is from the perspective of a parent whose child just graduated from high school last spring. On that level, our approach was to support our daughter in any positions she wanted to take that were legally or morally supportable - but not to agitate for the positions we might have liked her to take.

[caraher]

11. I didn't vote; I *could* but...

it would have to be a pretty extreme circumstance. So I could, but that answer would be misleading...

[ZombieHorde]

12. That is understandable.

[TZ]

13. No.

Why would anyone vote for ignorance in their public officials.? Would you vote for someone who thought the Earth was flat? Or that the Sun revolved around the earth? OR that DNA evidence was made up?
It speaks of lack of intelligence and critical thinking skills and narrow mindedness...a dangerous combination in anyone in power.

[HawkerHurricane]

15. Excuse me, but what does belief have to do with it?

We look at the evidence: life changes over time. We can see it in the fossil record. Evolution isn't a belief, but a fact. Now, I know that some beliefs require that you ignore inconvenient facts.

I do not believe in evolution, the facts say evolution is true. And my beliefs don't require me to ignore facts. Anyone who has beliefs that require them to ignore facts is unfit for public office.

[ZombieHorde]

17. One definition of the word belief is opinion, and makes for easier sentence structure.

If you have a better wording for my poll, feel free to share.

[HawkerHurricane]

19. But evolution is not a 'opinion'.

It does not represent a personal preference.

How about "Could you vote for someone who rejects the fact of evolution"?

[ZombieHorde]

21. not a 'opinion'

I agree that evolution is not an opinion, but you still have to choose whether or not you believe the facts. In your opinion, the facts are sound.

"Could you vote for someone who rejects the fact of evolution"?

That would work.

[hunter]

16. You don't have to "believe" in Evolution, it just is.

Religions vanish if there's nobody around to remember them, the biological reality of evolution doesn't.

If somebody's faith is such that it would force others to deny those things that would not vanish if people vanished, or it harms people who do not share in that faith, then no, I wouldn't vote for them.

The most harmful politicians in this time are those who believe in a very cruel economic ideology that artificially restricts the ability of most people to obtain the physical and intellectual sustenance which all humans need to thrive.

Racism, nationalism, discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation, are all obvious causes of human suffering, but belief in the "invisible hand of the free market" and other sorts of economic fantasies are equally damaging to the human spirit.

From this point of view all U.S. politicians are lacking, I wouldn't vote for any of them, but I don't really have a choice. Some atheist who says the United States is a land of ignorant money-grubbing imperialists, a nation that could be very much improved upon, isn't going to get elected.

A politician who doesn't understand Evolution well enough to see that it is a reality as certain as gravity isn't dangerous if they are adamant that they won't be inflicting their unusual faith on others. They are dangerous if they intend to challenge the teaching of evolution in schools -- just as dangerous as those religious fanatics who don't believe girls should be educated, or those who discriminate against religious or non-religious minorities.

Theism and atheism are equally unrepresentative of any physical reality. Both go away when there are no people in the room. I don't care if a politician is a theist or an atheist, if they have faith in evolution or not, so long as they are not forcing their own unrealities upon others, and are strongly motivated to protect the civil rights and welfare of everyone.

[ZombieHorde]

18. I don't understand the opposition to this word. Belief = opinion in the dictionary.

For example: I believe that coffee tastes better than urine.

I understand that belief has other meanings as well, but it would seem to me that the average person could tell the usage by context.

If you have a better way to word this poll, please feel free to share.

[hunter]

22. How about a person who rejects the science of biology?

Rejecting evolution is an explicit rejection of science. There is no intellectually honest way of denying the physical reality of evolution without denying the physical reality of the other sciences and the universe itself. Some religions do reject the physical reality of this universe but they don't tend to be threatened by the scientific study of evolution or any other science; they merely incorporate these scientific findings into their spiritual tapestries. The fundamentalists who reject evolution are threatened on two sides: on one side by the atheists who trust in science and are content to leave what they don't understand undefined, and on the other side the spiritualists who believe science is an honest expression of a greater Creation. The fundamentalist lives in a box of their own making insulated from the unknown by their own ignorance. If they are not forcing their ignorance upon others they are only a danger to themselves. Whenever they attempt to enforce their ignorance upon others, as they do when they prohibit the teaching of science in the public schools, then they become a hazard to the general welfare.

[Orsino]

23. No.

I have to qualify that, of course, by saying that my vote would depend on the stated political beliefs and actual record of the individual. Assuming, though, that denial of evolution is the usual pandering to Teh Stoopid or evidence of profound ignorance, I'd say no. The various emergencies facing our country and planet are too critical to be entrusted to such a mind.

[Evoman]

25. Only if I'm voting for who to evict from the Big Brother house!

There is absolutely no way I would vote for any politician who didn't believe in evolution. I will not give somebody who is either to stupid or too ignorant to accept evolution more power than myself.

[frogmarch]

26. I could never vote for a creationist. nt

[dassix]

28. Very interesting question proposed Zombie

I thought about this for a minute and realized I could vote for somebody who did not believe in evolution. People often jump to the fact that if they don't believe in evolution - they are religious right, or just plain religious. Not always true. Evolution is documented in thousands of books, and is backed by more fact than readable in a humanly possible year. However, the problem with evolution is that in MOST occurrences it occurs too slow for you to easily point and say "Hey that's evolution taking place!".

I believe in evolution and strongly promote sciences. However, if somebody was going for an election and was raised religious from childhood, then fell into science, there will always exists in the back of their heads a (don't have a good word for this- unintentional ignorance or subconscious obscurity?)

If they admit they will always have this religious background that influences certain criteria, however feel strongly for sciences.....I DON'T KNOWsdfsdf43f43f434f iug6776

Probably would not vote for them, but could under certain circumstances.