Ok, so there is a woman in Minnesota running for US House of Represenatives as a Republican. She is quoted in this weeks Rolling Stone as saying Evolution has never been proven.
The question I have for all of you, is would that be a deciding factor in how you vote for someone, their beliefs about Evolution.
Me personally, I hear someone doesn't believe in Evolution, I wouldn't vote for them.
Your thoughts on this topic, voting based on Evolution belief.
2006-10-10 03:22:22 · 35 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I wouldn't vote for the person. Her beliefs about evolution are not really relevant to her job, except for several points:
1) Someone who is that ignorant about science is not going to make good policy regarding science, especially in the area of what nonsense is foisted on kids in public school.
2) It indicates a strong conservative religious outlook on life and people who are religious conservatives generally are on the wrong side of many issues that are important to me.
3) I generally like people who are more educated than that to represent me in government.
2006-10-10 03:24:13 · answer #1 · answered by nondescript 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A serious answer.
You said it so well. It is your right to "believe" in evolution. It is others right to "believe" in a creator. Why? Both are unproven.
A couple of points: Are you saying that the universe is uncaused. That at the moment of the Big Bang, the universe began to exist, from nothing. That takes a lot of faith! There is no cosmology, except, stuff that most scientists term science fiction, that explains the moment the universe started to exist. If you believe in cause and effect, then the universe was caused. This is a fundemental issue.
Ok, then what caused the creator. If the creator is consciousness, then this begs the question, for no one truly understands consciousness, and how it is manifest even in humans. So there is lack of knowledge, and room to hypothesize, until knowledge can be gained. This should not be judged as wrong. It takes faith to believe in a creator, but, in my opinion and based on many reasons, less faith than the alternative.
Last, the issue of the origns of life is currently unknown. Most evolutionary biologists have given up on random chance and natural selection for the origins of life, back in the 60's. These "can" explain the process of change, but not the start of life. How do you select something from nothing? Sounds like more faith to me.
The idea of a biological organizing force has also lost ground. There is no credible theory in science on how life originated.
The key concept is that "DNA is information", and it takes intelligence to create information. There is no getting around that, except, to ignore the evidence and take a leap of faith.
By the way, to fix this overall discuss, evolution is the wrong term. The fossil record supports the fact that biological change has occurred. I'm not a catholic, and the catholic church and many Christians support the data from science. What she should have said, is that there is no science or theory that supports how the origins of life occurred. To start natural selection, required a beginning point that seems insurmountable to reach, thru a materialistic, natural process. It is a mystery to science.
And if you believe in mysteries, then you do believe and have taken a leap of faith. When lack of knowledge exists, having faith is ok, as long as you are being reason based, meaning, having some reasons, right or wrong, as the basis of your belief.
2006-10-10 04:32:30 · answer #2 · answered by Cogito Sum 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Evolution does not disprove the bible or God yet in basic terms someones theological interpretation. on the belief of whether there's a God or no longer, solid technology maintains to be impartial. The issues spoken approximately in Genesis a million that God did in an on the spot mentally/Spiritually continues to be unraveling interior the form of time and Genesis 2:a million-3 from the attitude of the actual has no longer yet befell. Now Adam replaced into the start of a clean portion of time referred to as the Adamic age (of which the bible bargains with) interior of a lots older portion of time which could be thousands and thousands or billions of years old. Genesis 6 speaks approximately Adam's offspring (referred to as the Sons of God) being mixed with the humanoid developed creatures that have been here by using their daughters. Adam's offspring presented language and objectivity to the basically subjective and emotional international of the animal. Adam is the lacking hyperlink that technology has yet to locate because of the fact his bones dissolved after death and so did his descendants that have been sizable. no longer all have been actual giants nevertheless yet some psychological and non secular giants.
2016-10-16 01:03:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If someone feels the need to point out that evolution has never been proved as the source of humanity, I would not vote for her.
We have no actual "proof" for the beginnings of human life. So, anyone who needs to single out and disqualify one theory has a personal agenda.
I would not vote for anyone who feels the need to assert their personal agenda through political office. That's the real reason Gore lost.
P.S. I gave Figato a thumbs up-because at least he broke it down and made it real.
2006-10-10 06:10:23 · answer #4 · answered by limendoz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My deciding factor would not be whether the person in question personally believed in evolution or not. It would be whether she supported the teaching of creationism versus evolution in our schools.
If she wished to see evolution removed from science curricula, I would not vote for her.
If she said she personally did not believe in evolution but that was what must be taught in school, and I supported her on all other issues, I would vote for her. Then I would probably write a letter to her commending her for her stand in keeping evolution in the schools despite her personal beliefs.
2006-10-10 03:30:19 · answer #5 · answered by Chickyn in a Handbasket 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If evolution is mentioned or creationism, I won't vote for the candidate BECAUSE they are pandering to a certain voting block. So their intentions are not noble. This is NOT a political issue. The US is a secular society that provides for freedom of religion so I don't like people who even mention this topic in the political forum.
You got me ruffled this morning already. HA HA!
2006-10-10 03:27:44 · answer #6 · answered by a_delphic_oracle 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
At this point, given how much rank dishonesty and perversion and self-serving greed there is in politics, I would vote for whoever I thought was the most generally upright and honest candidate, even if they had a few wacky opinions.
2006-10-10 06:56:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aw man.
Why are some people so stupid.
As a Christian I believe in Science. I believe there is beauty in science. I am thankful that I don't have to force myself to believe the Bible literally. And, for the record I don't believe in Noah's little ark either.
Why oh why do people take the Bible literally? They make a mockery of themselves.
While I'm on the subject...
The Bible was wrote and compiled by the Catholic Church. How can fundamentalists take the Catholic Book and re-interpret it? It's like Toyota taking a Chevy Caveliar owners manual and 'interpreting' it for a Lexus.
2006-10-10 03:34:15 · answer #8 · answered by Baby #3 due 10/13/09 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? How does a belief in god or evolution make you a better representative? It doesn't. With that in mind, I vote based on what this person is capable of doing for his/her constituents and what they plan to do if elected. Period.
2006-10-10 03:31:37 · answer #9 · answered by gjstoryteller 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Her stance on evolution is highly irrelevant in my opinion.
In government there are much more important issues to deal with and address. the fact that she saw it so relevant to her campaighn makes me doubt her competence though.
she is trying to appeal to a certain groups beleifs to gain votes and popularity instead of showing how she is actually suitable to sit in government and do good for the state or country as a whole and not just pacify one group of people.
2006-10-10 03:46:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋