Its presidential election time again, and I'm feeling all tingly inside! I find nothing more enjoyable than watching debates between the candidates. But the primary elections are the best for debate because the candidates between each party debate within their own groups. So I get to see Republican and Democratic candidates argue their parties base issues. Now, I seem very liberal to those not in the know, but I am very much an independent and refuse to vote based on party allegiances. Its disgraceful to our voting system to vote based on party.
So its only right that I would decide to start doing pieces on the candidates. But not as of yet. I have a tremendous beef to pick with the republican party. Now, its one thing to be conservative, to have your religion, and be for your parties values. But its something is completely wrong when you think you can run for office and spit in the eye of science and take pride in your foolishness. During one of the Republican debates, they were asked how many did not believe in evolution. Well three people raised their hands. Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tecredo. Three candidates for president don't believe in the scientifically proven theory of evolution.
Whats scary about this is I understand their view. I used to be in their shoes, religion wise. The fact is that not a single one of these people, including most christians have read any serious books regarding evolution. Of course, they have read innumerable amounts of books on creation from christian scientists. How can you consider yourself informed when you read only a christian side of the arguement? How can you consider yourself the smart one when you listen to religion and will not even consider reading a science book about it? Yet all three candidates, and my parents unfortunately, use the same arguments that have been disproven time and time again since Darwin first proved them wrong! Yet they haven't read a single science book on the subject and wouldn't know the evidence for evolution if it hit them in the face.
When we elect a president, shouldn't we elect the ones that are the most informed? Yet these three essentially said they didn't believe in evolution due to gods word. This is who we want to elect, someone who only beliefs what their interpretation of the bible tells them? Nonsense, these people shouldn't be given a second look. To believe that evolution is not true based on purely christian rhetoric is completely ignorant. To deliberately not inform yourself is worse than ignorance and should be regarded as destructive behavior towards ones self.
Listen, we don't all have to agree with what evidence tells us. However, it is foolish to not at least look at all the evidence. A president that will not at least keep himself completely informed, is not worthy of running a country. Thus these three men will not get my vote, and I will not write favorably about them. There is an exception to the rule with that last statement. Mike Huckabee approves of the Fair Tax, which I fully support. For that reason, I have at least reserved some good comments for him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
When was evolution proven? I'm serious. I really thought that it was a widely accepted, but unproven theory given that there are no known transitionary species found in fossils and the like. So, then it would seem like it wouldn't be so far a stretch for a person to choose not to believe a theory just because it's widely accepted, even presidential candidates. People used to think the earth was flat too. I'm sure they realized that some people would criticise, but I think their honesty about their beliefs was refreshing.
Mike Huckabee seems to be much less divisive. And the fair tax is a great idea, I wish more people actually knew abuot it, or at least read a copy of The Fair Tax book before discounting it.
the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is assigned to the first catagory by nearly every scientist in the world.
Evolution has more evidence for it that nearly every other theory in science. Gravity is a theory, but you don't question it. Theory does not mean unproven, and in this case, does not mean guess. What it is, is a frame work from which you ask questions and make predictions about what should happen if this theory were true. If that happens, it validates the theory. Evolution can not be anything more than a theory, just like gravity. Its not a law that governs, its a process. In fact, nearly everything we know about the human body is composed in one theory or another. It is complete ignorance to think that its unproven because its a theory.
But unfortunately, the only people who say the thinks you say like "I didn't know it was proven" haven't so much as picked up a modern science book on the issue. The fact is that we have found 3-5 non-modern human species already including a hominid that had long arms to be in the trees with hips and legs and neck for standing up right. Thats right, there have been several missing links in human evolution that have been found. And no, Piltdown man is not one of them.
Oh yes, there have been tons of "missing links" found for other species too. In fact, they can definitively trace the evolution of the first whale through the known fossil record now. The evidence is so great as to be incredible to not believe it.
but why am I arguing? I'm sure you believe in creation because of the bible. I can go through your bible and show you inconsistencies, things that have been proven false, and archeology that shows no evidence of a kingdom of Israel, but you will believe it is the infallible word of god any way. Why should I argue with someone who is going to tell me he doesn't believe evidence then tell me you just have to have faith an invisible sky/sun god created everything as written down in a book over 2000 years ago? Thats not silly, its ridiculous.
Post a Comment