I don’t want to talk about it — I despise the whole field — but everyone is emailing me about it, and I was even talking to my mother on the phone tonight and she asked me about it (I said I wouldn’t watch those weasels unless they were in a crotch-kicking contest). I’ll let this thread open up for a free-for-all discussion of the cacophony.
All I’ve heard so far is that a) they avoided talking about Bush, preferring to measure themselves against Reagan (Reagan was almost as great an incompetent as the current resident, so they’re obviously aiming low), and b) when they were asked about evolution, a goodly subset of them were so stupid that they said they didn’t believe it. Too bad this debate wasn’t merged with that quiz show, so some stern harridan could have announced, “You are the weakest link!” and pulled a lever that would have catapulted them into a shark tank or something entertaining.
So who are the Republican anti-science goons? Huckabee, Brownback, and … ?
Watch the response at Crooks and Liars. The foolish three are Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo.
As I said in the previous post (sorry for diverting!), I definitely saw Tancredo raise his hand. I thought the other two that raised their hands were Brownback and Huckabee, and someone else has also said Brownback did raise his hand. Still unsure about Huckabee, I merely thought it was him based on his previous comments.
McCain was the one who was asked about evolution and he gave an unequivocal yes. He then realized that he couldn’t afford to lose the far right and conceded the Grand Canyon to GAWD.
When Matthews asked the field who did not believe in evolution, I think I saw three hands raise, but I didn’t catch who they belonged to. I assume Brownback and Huckabee were two of them.
They were Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo. Isn’t anyone else a bit surprised there were only 3?
Yes, I was startled it was only three actually. And startled that there were three at the same time. Hopeful to the end, me. Oh well.
And Crooks and Liars has the video.
They weren’t asked if they thought “competing theories” should be taught. They were asked if they believed in evolution. There’s no political issue with saying yes, and if they choose to support anti-evolution efforts in the future, they can say that they’re giving it equal time with the dominant theory without it conflicting with their personal stated beliefs.
What are you going to do when the crowd you’re appealing to is in the Dark Ages? Seriously. It’s not only the fault of the leaders, but the people too. How can you argue for exploring beyond the horizon when the people believe the Earth is flat? Of course, it doesn’t excuse the ignorance and the failure to enlighten the people, but if you want to survive and be a leader in the Conservative circles, then you have to reflect their public sentiment.
Would you expect that in the 21st century America (an advanced country) we’d be debating evolution v. creation or ID?!!!
As for the debate, I watched it, and even though I wanted to puke, it’s important to hear what these people are saying… and get some extra motivation to work a little harder to make sure that none of them is elected.
…and conceded the Grand Canyon to GAWD.
How generous. I move to concede the greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Boy! With all these guys marching around carrying Reagan’s coffin over their heads, I sure hope he don’t wind up dumped out on the ground the way the poor ol’ Ayatollah did …
I was very surprised only 3 in 10 said they don’t believe evolution. I would have guessed more of them would have raised their hands.
I’m sure most of you have seen this:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
The USA is only 2nd to last in “accepting” evolution.
I wonder what the result would have been if the question were posed to the Democrats.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, “Tis best to keep one’s hand down and appear stupid, than to raise it and remove all doubt.”
The topic of the anti-evolutionists in the debate is buzzing all over the ‘internets’ tonight, and dragging out all the creationists to argue their screed. Crooks and Liars brought out two, using the same tired arguments. My new policy is to link to the “Index of creationist claims” and require they make an argument substantially different from what’s on that list.
Brownback led the way on causing me to look up to see what idiot just spoke, so no surprise he was an evolution-denier. It was very embarassing to hear all them seemingly so gung ho to fight with Iran
I hope they ask one of the Dem candidates the same question: “Do you believe in evolution?” Then the candidate — if s/he is smart — will repsond. “I don’t understand the question. Evolution is not a belief system. It’s science. I don’t need to believe in it. I need to understand it.”
Yeah, 4 of them raised their hand to indicate that they “don’t believe” in evolution. Pathetic.
I’d say that the surprise there was Ron Paul, a Texan, who wants to implement an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. He seemed to be the most intelligent of the lot, so that pretty much disqualifies him from any chance at the nomination. No smart people allowed.
So that’s what that bugling sound is on early fall mornings in the Tetons.
“I said I wouldn’t watch those weasels…” C’mon PZ, Weasels are tough little animals, but they’ve got enough problems without comparing them to Presidential candidates, much less Republicans!
Gerry L said something worth repeating:
Brilliant! May I add that to my repertoire?
Then the candidate — if s/he is smart — will respond. “I don’t understand the question. Evolution is not a belief system. It’s science. I don’t need to believe in it. I need to understand it.”
Don’t get your hopes up.
In fact, I’d like to see the current crop of Dems asked the same question. I bet we’d see more than a little hedging.
BTW, I do believe in evolution, just as I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.
I passed.
Don’t care to watch a bunch of bigoted, power-hungry, white males all describe how they cream their pants when they think of Ronald Reagan.
OK, let’s please not assume that all folks from Texas fit some scary preconceived stereotype. That kind of thinking belongs to lesser minds.
There is nothing at all surprising about Paul’s position on Iraq. He’s been consistently and unwaveringly against the war from the beginning. In fact, “consistent” and “unwavering” are two pretty good adjectives to describe all of Paul’s political positions. When you agree with him, that’s a great thing. When you disagree with him, which you will on far more issues than were presented tonight, it’s worse than trying to convince a YE-er that life existed prior to the Iron Age.
Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of libertarianism. It isn’t some fancy low-taxes, damn the revenuers rhetoric with him, he’s the real deal. If you listened closely to his debate remarks on economic issues, you might see that he’d happily erase not just the Great Society but the New Deal as well, and he’d put us back on the gold standard to boot.
I like seeing a more diverse slate of candidates, especially including some decided non-panderers like Paul in the mix. Diversity is a good thing. But Ron Paul will be in the general election if and only if his opponent is Dennis Kucinich, and when that slate is announced you’ll know to ditch this blog and start prayin’, cuz it’s surely the sign of the breaking of the seventh seal and the blowing of the seventh trumpet.
Look at all the charcoal-gray suits and red “power” ties.
Crotch-kicking contest nearly made me piss myself. I will hae to use that line for sure.
RNC = the party of dead white males
If the Dems can’t win this one, I don’t know what.
In my previous post, substitute GOP for RNC.
I didn’t see it. Isn’t Ron Paul the big black transvestite? Perhaps the Rethuglicants really are the “big tent party” after all,
@Bert
That would be Rupaul. Dr. Ron Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Presidential nominee– hardly your typical “Rethuglicant”.
For sure. Libertarians are more like “Rethugliwonts” than “Rethuglicants”.
I was quite interested in seeing Tancredo’s performance because
1) He’s from my state, and
2) He’s a loathsome toad,
and I have to say, he seemed entirely out of his water. He was nervous, as if he’d never been on a national stage before. He’s definitely not President material this time around, but I’m afraid he may live long enough to try again, with more experience.
Oh, I really should apologize: I’m from the district that elected him (I don’t want to call it “his district”), but I did not vote for him.
I wish we could get these handjobs on the “believe” more than on “evolution”. The principle of Evolution has a wealth of evidence. I don’t “believe” at all. I examine and tentatively accept the fact. There severall useful tests that may be applied.
These politicos are seeking a “belief” advantage at the polls based on theses ‘accepted’ and furiously held by a definable percentage of the electorate. The very term ‘belief’ has become a quality that begs: “Do you believe in Belief” as a question for winnowing candidates.
Brownback is, I’m sorry to say, from my home state of Kansas. And I might add that Kansas is really, really screwed up. Brownback has no shot at the nomination but if he does manage it, someone needs to make a movie highlighting his “stem cell” poster board presentation. Come to think of it, I think Jon Stewart did just that…
RE: “Too bad this debate wasn’t merged with that quiz show, so some stern harridan could have announced, “You are the weakest link!” and pulled a lever that would have catapulted them into a shark tank or something entertaining.”
<
I put my hand up for the role of “stern harridan.”
skeptic8 is right. I don’t believe evolution either. The whole point of science is that it’s not belief, that it’s permanent skepticism, that it’s conservative about accepting anything even provisionally. I do buy the Enlightenment argument (Bacon, Descartes etc.) that we’re not born understanding the world, and that leads me to be more persuaded by modes of knowledge that have built-in abilities to remedy error than by modes that are dogmatic. So there’s an element of axiomatic choice there, and if you want to call *that* belief, it’s OK by me. But after that, no, it’s not like you choose to accept the periodic table but not quantum mechanics. You confront a huge variety of interconnected theories and frameworks, some of which will be inevitably be replaced and discarded as we learn more. “Evolution” (you wonder if any of the ten on that stage could give a coherent account of what it is) is so broadly supported and interlinked that it’s about as strong a result in science as you get, but that’s it.
The tendency to phrase this as “belief” feeds into relativist efforts to claim that science is just another religion or another “belief system.” Natural science is *not* a belief system. It’s a skepticism system.
Wow you have a mum? I thought pirates were all orphans.
Good lord! What kind of words are those?!? Take care, lest ye summon the Acolytes of the Adguacyth!
I don’t know. Inasmuch as I have any opinion at all this stage, I don’t think either side has put forth anyone even remotely electable, with the single possible exception of Rudy Giuliani (who I wouldn’t mind having in my Cabinet but who would suck out loud running the whole show).
I’m surprised the Democrats managed to take the House, but Pelosi has proven herself not to be the do-nothing leader I was afraid she’d be, and maybe the Democrats will actually manage to keep the House majority. I don’t have the same confidence in Harry Reid on the Senate side, especially with Joe Lieberman as the sole balance of power in the Senate. I think Reid is another useless washout like Daschle was before him. As for the Presidential election… hoo boy. I don’t like it at all. I think it’s going to go Republican in a squeaker again, simply because the Democrats’ current two strongest candidates, Obama and Clinton, are unelectable. Too much FUD around Obama, too much irrational Clinton hate — I predict the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and we’ll be stuck with a Republican figurehead for President in ’08.
Who needs Republicans when you have clueless middle school principals in Alberta:
What are you going to do when the crowd you’re appealing to is in the Dark Ages? Seriously.
proclaim myself king and let them eat cake, of course!
Maybe I’ve been brainwashed by analytic philosophy, but there’s nothing mystical or magical or fruity about belief. Belief is when you think something is true. Believing p is just accepting p as true. That’s all.
2+2=4? I believe it. There’s a bed in my room? I believe it. Paris is in France? I believe it. Living things share a common ancestry? I believe it. Changes in allele frequencies are guided by natural selection? I believe it.
When you guys hear the word ‘believe’, do you automatically start thinking of cherished pieces of dogma affirmed with childlike piety? Because I just think of the attitude I have towards e.g. the proposition My car is dark red or Cheese is a dairy product.
(I mean, sure, you might raise some worries about the right doxastic attitude to take towards consensus claims about theoretical particles in physics — maybe you accept these claims merely as empirically adequate instead of as true. But if you treat the big claims of evolutionary biology like this, if you treat them somehow more delicately than established claims like “Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon” and “Cheetahs are a type of big cat”, then your confidence in evolutionary biology is way too low.)
Though I am sure many here regularly regard onegoodmove, I would like to draw your attention to it today. They have an extract where Stephen Colbert reports on French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray, and even plugs his book The Atheist Manifesto. I read it in the original French version Athéologie and it is a good read.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/
An article that they link.
http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue40/Onfray40.htm
Here’s the video:
Who Doesn’t Believe in Evolution?
I thought an article in HuffPo summed it up well. Just one phrase:
“10 middle-aged white guys”
PZ, what do you have against the poor cartilaginous fishes?
Wouldn’t what you suggest border on animal cruelty?
Yeah, Reagan sucked big time, to put it eloquently.
Republicans? I was thinking everyone would be emailing about Hitchens on CNN yesterday (or was it the day before) with that Dobbs chap. I only saw the back end but it looked a good outing.
Huh. I was actually impressed at first with McCain’s strong “Yes” answer, but then after the other dolts raised their hands for not, it sounded like he started to backpedal (like usual). The crooks and liars clip ended after that – what did he say about the Grand Canyon?
In 1980, the Soviet Union looked like it was the winning team. In 1988, it was in its death throes. I know that the liberal line is that the collapse of the Soviet Union had nothing at all to do with Reagan’s policies, that it was inevitable, but it sure didn’t look inevitable in 1980.
George W. Bush’s attempt to remake the world has been an absolute disaster, but Reagan’s mostly succeeded.
Yes, there were a few screwups — every President has those. But Reagan was a very successful President.
As to your specific point — regarding evolution — the fact is that some folks in the US think the Theory of Evolution is the tool of Satan. Alas, those folks tend to vote Republican in large numbers. And so, any Republican has to placate that group, if he wants to win. No matter what he personally believes.
I know that will make you feel (even more) superior, but don’tget cocky, kid. The Democrats have within their ranks equally nutty folks — the people who think the wrong side won the Cold War,for example.
“Markets work” is nearly as well-established as “evolution happened,” but any Democratic candidate has to placate the unreconstructed leftists among them.
McCain responded:
“I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.”
He was clearly backpedaling so as not to lose the religious right vote. Personally, I was encouraged that 7 of 10 “believed” in evolution. I thought more hands would go up, simply to pander to their constituency.
Am I the only one who noticed the way McCain paused before answering the evolution question? Didn’t anyone else see the gears spinning in his head?
The show of hands not believing in evolution was pretty bad, but I was more creeped out by some of Romney’s comments stressing faith and snubbing atheists.
Starting with page 6 of the transcript:
And then on page 9:
It’s not as creepy in the transcript, but there was something in the way he singled out “person of faith” as a prime virtue that gave me the chills. His underlying message was, “No, really, you CAN vote for a Mormon! We hate atheists just as much as you do!”
Shark tank?? Would mutated sea-bass with bad attitudes suffice?
;^)
“I said I wouldn’t watch those weasels unless they were in a crotch-kicking contest”
“I’ll Rochambeau you for it!”
— CV
No, Reagan did little except confuse the Soviet leadership. The USSR was too weak to follow the Brezhnev Doctrine and keep its satellite countries in line with force. Reagan tore up countries and pulled us closer to nuclear war for absolutely no reason.
“George W. Bush’s attempt to remake the world has been an absolute disaster.”
Really? Have you looked at the price of gas lately?
I have a friend from Poland who really resents the whole “Reagan brought down the USSR” meme. She seems to think some labor union had something to do with it. And wasn’t it under Carter that we first started supporting the Taliban?
What? How is that libertarian? Why shouldn’t gold be worth whatever people want to pay for it??? That’s reactionary.
I’m not, because it was predicted by the ABB theory: Anyone But Bush.
If you didn’t look at it hard enough, yeah. (For example, if you were a sovietologuer like Condi.) When did Brzeziński predict that the Soviet Union would fall apart and abandon communism, while China would not fall apart water communism down beyond recognition? Wasn’t that before 1980?
The pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was a screwup — a bug. The Iran-Contra affair was not a screwup — it was a feature.
And then there’s the ridiculosity of SDI… Reagan started getting demented and confusing a movie he had participated in with reality. Trying to rescue the Gipper’s memory, pun intended, does not work. Sure, most of us would prefer Raygun over Fearless Flightsuit any day of the week and twice on Sundays, but that’s a quite unfair comparison.
I completely agree. However, in markets, like in biology, competition is selected against, because it’s a waste of energy. If you leave capitalism unwatched, it dies, and you end up with Gilded Age monopolies.
Water knows best how to run downhill; but we still build dams and channels.
Now, back to the topic…:
Yes, but notice just how little he said. (Where exactly is “there”, for example?) What he said is fully compatible with the weakest versions of theistic evolution, with a deism in which the role of God is more or less restricted to “And he saw that it was good”. Newsflash to self: McCain is a professional politician. He knows precisely how to not answer a question.
You know, over here, if candidates said that about their and their voters’ own country, it would be considered embarrassing.
I think I’ll never get used to the world “leader”. Because of its German translation, you know. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
What? How is that libertarian? Why shouldn’t gold be worth whatever people want to pay for it??? That’s reactionary.
I’m not, because it was predicted by the ABB theory: Anyone But Bush.
If you didn’t look at it hard enough, yeah. (For example, if you were a sovietologuer like Condi.) When did Brzeziński predict that the Soviet Union would fall apart and abandon communism, while China would not fall apart water communism down beyond recognition? Wasn’t that before 1980?
The pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was a screwup — a bug. The Iran-Contra affair was not a screwup — it was a feature.
And then there’s the ridiculosity of SDI… Reagan started getting demented and confusing a movie he had participated in with reality. Trying to rescue the Gipper’s memory, pun intended, does not work. Sure, most of us would prefer Raygun over Fearless Flightsuit any day of the week and twice on Sundays, but that’s a quite unfair comparison.
I completely agree. However, in markets, like in biology, competition is selected against, because it’s a waste of energy. If you leave capitalism unwatched, it dies, and you end up with Gilded Age monopolies.
Water knows best how to run downhill; but we still build dams and channels.
Now, back to the topic…:
Yes, but notice just how little he said. (Where exactly is “there”, for example?) What he said is fully compatible with the weakest versions of theistic evolution, with a deism in which the role of God is more or less restricted to “And he saw that it was good”. Newsflash to self: McCain is a professional politician. He knows precisely how to not answer a question.
You know, over here, if candidates said that about their and their voters’ own country, it would be considered embarrassing.
I think I’ll never get used to the world “leader”. Because of its German translation, you know. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
“George W. Bush’s attempt to remake the world has been an absolute disaster.”
Really? Have you looked at the price of gas lately?
Yeah. It’s $3 a gallon here. What’s your point?
I put my hand up for the role of “stern harridan.”
– beepbeepitsme
Can I be the shark?
Republicans aren’t bad because they’re white males; they’re bad because they’re neandertals. PZ is a white male, and he isn’t evil embodied, right? Let’s not turn legitimate criticism into bigotry; it’s true that most bigots are white males, but it’s not true that all white males are bigots.
Petro-profits are up. Taxes are down. How exactly has GWB failed to remake the world to his liking?
Gorbachev speaks on SDI, Reagan, The Wall, and The Fall.
Cheerful Iconoclast (@47), I’m generally sympathetic to the people-in-glass-houses admonition that every group has its own crazies, but…
Really? Who? I mean, I’m sure you could find one or two tinfoil-wearing nuts who would say that, but an actual constituency within the Democratic party? One that candidates for the nomination have to take into account in the way Republican candidates have to take into account their anti-evolution constituency? Gimme a break. I talk to a lot of Dems, including some who are far to the left of any of their presidential candidates, and I’ve never heard one of them express any longing for the good old days of Soviet totalitarianism.
Hell, I bet you’d have a time finding anyone who would say “the wrong side won the Cold War” even at the HQ of the Communist Party USA, nevermind among the Dems.
Again, a strawman: Where do you see a Democratic constituency that denies “markets work” in the same way that there’s a large Republican constituency that denies “evolution happened”? Despite the right-wing penchant for labeling Dems “socialists” whenever they talk about universal health care or public education or business regulations, there are almost no actual socialists among Democrats… certainly not a significant socialist “base” to which candidates must defer in the way Repubs defer to creationists.
As for Reagan, I give him credit for some successes: I believe his military buildup did hasten (hasten, not cause) the end of the Cold War (albeit at the cost of crushing budget deficits), and the extent to which his optimistic leadership style lifted the national mood was important, not the trivial matter some critics make it out to be.
But increasingly I see Reagan as having ploughed the ground for the Gingrich-DeLay-Bush-Cheney version of Republican government we now suffer under. I think the eventual judgment of history will be that the damage done by his ideological descendents will have outweighed any successes Reagan might be credited with. All the nuclear-winter nerves of the 80s notwithstanding, I actually think the world is closer to violent global catastrophe than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis… and it’s all down to the cluelessly swaggering policies of people who wake up every morning and ask themselves “What would Reagan do?”
Cheerful Iconoclast (@47), I’m generally sympathetic to the people-in-glass-houses admonition that every group has its own crazies, but…
Really? Who? I mean, I’m sure you could find one or two tinfoil-wearing nuts who would say that, but an actual constituency within the Democratic party? One that candidates for the nomination have to take into account in the way Republican candidates have to take into account their anti-evolution constituency? Gimme a break. I talk to a lot of Dems, including some who are far to the left of any of their presidential candidates, and I’ve never heard one of them express any longing for the good old days of Soviet totalitarianism.
Hell, I bet you’d have a time finding anyone who would say “the wrong side won the Cold War” even at the HQ of the Communist Party USA, nevermind among the Dems.
Again, a strawman: Where do you see a Democratic constituency that denies “markets work” in the same way that there’s a large Republican constituency that denies “evolution happened”? Despite the right-wing penchant for labeling Dems “socialists” whenever they talk about universal health care or public education or business regulations, there are almost no actual socialists among Democrats… certainly not a significant socialist “base” to which candidates must defer in the way Repubs defer to creationists.
As for Reagan, I give him credit for some successes: I believe his military buildup did hasten (hasten, not cause) the end of the Cold War (albeit at the cost of crushing budget deficits), and the extent to which his optimistic leadership style lifted the national mood was important, not the trivial matter some critics make it out to be.
But increasingly I see Reagan as having ploughed the ground for the Gingrich-DeLay-Bush-Cheney version of Republican government we now suffer under. I think the eventual judgment of history will be that the damage done by his ideological descendents will have outweighed any successes Reagan might be credited with. All the nuclear-winter nerves of the 80s notwithstanding, I actually think the world is closer to violent global catastrophe than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis… and it’s all down to the cluelessly swaggering policies of people who wake up every morning and ask themselves “What would Reagan do?”
While asking presidential candidates if they believe in evolution might be a useful test to winnow out the complete idiots, I’d be a lot more interested in knowing if these potential leaders of the free world think on these issues:
1. Is the President able to ignore any law he or she disagrees with?
2. Is it ever justified to torture enemy combatants or suspected terrorists?
3. Does the Constitution give an explicit right to habeas corpus? Is there any justification for holding anyone for years without being charged of a crime?
4. Does the President have the ability to redefine a law passed by Congress with a signing statement?
5. What would justify taking the country to war?
6. When does executive privilege apply to keep members of an administration from testifying before Congress?
7. What do you consider the qualifications necessary to be Attorney General? Should the Attorney General have some knowledge and respect for the Constitution? Is at least a normal memory a requirement?
Ooops… sorry for the double-post. I blame local network hiccups.
Silly Hank Gillette. Elections aren’t about things that matter. They’re about Reagan and haircuts and the zombie fetus army.
Can someone show me a picture of the ‘Hand of God’ that McCain saw in the Grand Canyon?
How big is it? Does it have the requisite 4 fingers and a thumb? How long has it been there?
Is it grasping at straws?
Apparently Ron Paul got a huge jump in his numbers last night.
I have no doubt it’s due to his stating he wants to bring the troops home now.
I suppose we can be glad that the three who said they don’t believe in evolution are all “who the hell is that?” candidates. Of the three, I’ve only heard of Huckabee in relation to the presidential race, and that he had thrown his hat in is all that I’d heard up till now. I think we see to whom the dark horses think they should suck up.
Sad that only McCain would admit to “believing” it (in that context one ought simply to say one “believes” and not mince words). He’s still the straightest shooter of that bunch, the little “God in the Grand Canyon” spiel being necessary in American politics (not that he doesn’t believe it). I think we can assume that he’s not going to throw a spanner at us by saying that he “believes in evolution” as Behe does.
Beside that, I just hope that the rest will be pinned down on their views regarding evolution, and its relation to education policy. This issue tells us whether or not someone is fundamentally opposed to the Enlightenment values that spawned this nation or if they’re against them–although most of the candidates probably don’t understand it that way.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Jason Spaceman, the religious have always been antagonistic to education in Alberta. From a recent article about the lack of workers’ rights knowledge among employed teenagers:
Oh, I didn’t mean that McCain is more straightforward than Ron Paul. I don’t know why he didn’t take a position–maybe because he thought it too simplistic a question for his presumably libertarian answer.
But anyway, his position is probably about as important to the election as Brownback’s is.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Christian
I think you’ll find the hand of god has a total of 5 fingers plus a thumb…. otherwise all those fine folks who are “made in his image” would need to amputate one from each hand!
;-)
Despite the right-wing penchant for labeling Dems “socialists” whenever they talk about universal health care or public education or business regulations, there are almost no actual socialists among Democrats…
True. There aren’t even many actual social democrats or “democratic socialists” among Democrats. And that shows just how far the political mainstream has moved to the right on economic policy over the past 30 or 40 years. Even the Democrats now largely embrace policies of low taxes, free trade, deregulation, market-based solutions, globalization and so on. And thank goodness for that.
There aren’t even many actual social democrats or “democratic socialists” among Democrats.
Ahem! I resent that notion. I, for one, am a Social Democrat and a registered Democrat. And I’m hardly alone. (Ed Asner, e.g.)
You should rephrase that to be “There aren’t that many social democrats or socialists of power among Democrats.
Dave2, regarding your comment 39, the issue of acceptance vs. belief irks me quite a bit, too, and I completely agree with your take on it. Based on the way so many people say that they don’t “believe” in evolution, but rather accept it based on overwhelming evidence, “belief” becomes a pretty meaningless word. i.e. I don’t “believe” my car is grey – based on the photons of light interacting with my eye, and operating under the assumption that I’m not living in the Matrix, I provisionally accept that my car is grey. I don’t know, maybe that is the way some people see the world and use those words, but not me. I just always thought of “belief” as implying a high degree of certainty about something, kind of like acceptance, but more a direct indication of what your world view is. (I don’t know if that all came out right, but I’m typing during my lunch break and don’t have enough time to think about how to word it more eloquently.)
No, there aren’t many, period. You’re a dying breed. Even the Scandinavian countries, which went the furthest in adopting a social democratic economic model, are now gradually abandoning it in the face of globalization and other forces that have rendered it unsustainable.
Just look at the Daily Kos.
Those that do acknowledge that markets work do so reluctantly, not understanding how they work; believing that it must involve something evil and sinful.
I came here from the Washington Post site where a long thread on the “believe in evolution” topic is careening towards total train wreck.
Here, I find the thoughts of Fatboy and Dave2, about “acceptance” vs. “belief” are close to my own. I believe any number of things that I might not be able to rationally prove, such is the definition of faith. Evolution, on the other hand, is something I accept rather than believe. Evolution isn’t making extraordinary demands of faith, so it isn’t a matter of belief, but rather of observation and congruence with reason and evidence.
I tried to watch the Rethugs but could not stomach it. Besides, they are so predictable it was virtually a rerun before it happened.
Sorry, something got chopped when I was reviewing the above.
I find the thoughts of Fatboy and Dave2, about “acceptance” vs. “belief,” to be overly literal. What most people mean by belief is closer to the view of atomic dog among others, which are close to my own.
That’s how it should have read.
Once again I find that stupidity and politics walk hand in hand down the aisle. What we need is an IQ test, of sorts, that must be taken by all candidate for presidency. If they don’t score well above average then they are unfit to run our country. This goes for all parties. We have had far too many morons in the white house. No country should be forced to deal with a complete idiot as president. This would surely eliminate the Georgie Porgies from the contest as well as most people who devalue science and real understanding.
per Cheerful Iconoclast at #47
The Democrats have within their ranks equally nutty folks — the people who think the wrong side won the Cold War,for example.
Who, exactly? Name any Democratic electee above the rank of dogcatcher who’s said anything of the sort.
“Markets work” is nearly as well-established as “evolution happened,” but any Democratic candidate has to placate the unreconstructed leftists among them.
Got straw? I’m as unreconstructed a leftist as they come, and I don’t know any Democrat with a college degree who doesn’t get basic economics. However, most Dems also understand that unregulated commercial corporations, left to their own devices and Reaganesque “self-regulation,” will eventually poison, impoverish and/or rob everyone in sight.
I suppose comprehending this distinction is what you mean by implying that Dems don’t understand markets. The GOP, on the other hand, is filled–at its highest levels–with simpletons who think the Invisible Handjob will fix everything. (As with Creationism, they needed be bothered with facts, it’s just something they take on faith. It also means that whatever they do, however self-serving, is okay–perfect for someone like Dubya, who can’t deal with anything more complex.)
I’m so tired of this crappy argument. The GOP has spent > 6 years straight raping the US treasury and subjecting the rest of us to whatever social experimentation the Right’s biggest and most hateful nutcases could come up with. They wipe their @sses on our Constitution. Given a choice between handling any legitimate government function honestly or corruptly, they not only invariably pick the corruption, but they boot out anyone who prefers honesty.
And before that, they did nothing for 8 years straight but nose around in Bill Clinton’s underwear drawer. On the public dime.
And what do the GOP’s defenders do when called on it? “All politicians are corrupt, not just Republicans. Why, the Dems are just as bad.”
No, we’re not.
I agree with Gerry L. What kind of bizarre society has to ask its politicians if they “believe” in universally accepted scientific results? I guess next they’ll ask the candidates if they believe in nitrogen.
“I think I’ll never get used to the world “leader”. Because of its German translation, you know. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.”
I’m afraid we’ll have to disregard your entire post on account of Godwin’s Law :)
And here I thought it was Paul Bunyan’s doing.
Huckabee wants to know,” what in the world that question has to do with being president.”He must have been out of the country when all the reports of the Bush whitehouse and the stifiling of science were reported in every medium in the country.If you don’t accept biology,I might think you also don’t accept physics,chemistry,or geology.You might be a woo-miester or a wowser.I certainly would not like to vote for either one.So calm down Mr.Huckabee,it was only a short cut question to stupid.You passed.
Anna Z – I feel a little like Joe Frazier at the First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence doing this, but take a look at the Webster’s definition of believe. Yes, religious faith is in there, but so are other meanings, one of which is even, “to accept as true, genuine, or real.” That’s why it irritates me a little when so many people make such a fuss about “accepting” evolution, not “believing” it. There are so many other aspects of the evolution/creation conflict – don’t worry so much about people’s word choice, especially when the word choice isn’t really all that bad. (Here I am saying not to fuss over word choice, and this is my second response about that very topic. I guess that’s enough from me for today.)
Most hilarious quote from the debate? Any takers?
My favorite was Mitt Romney’s “He will die!!”, in reference to bin Laden. The way he said it reminded me of a D&D geek talking about an ogre. I half-expected him to say he wanted to cast magic missile at bin Laden.
On some days, I think those who fuss over ‘belief’ in evolution are playing word games. They’re messing with ordinary established usage in order to give themselves an opportunity to hector their audience about fallibilism in science. (Just like lots of Christians like to claim that Christianity’s not a religion, so that they can then hector their audience about “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ”) “No, no, I don’t believe anything in science, not even that there are mites on eyebrows — I provisionally accept it as accounting for empirically observable data” And I’m like, if you don’t believe there are mites on eyebrows, then you’re way too careful about your beliefs.
On other days, I think the word ‘belief’ has been made irredeemably goopy. Here’s an example. The traditional account of knowledge in philosophy goes like this: S knows that p just in case S believes p, S is justified in believing p, and p is true. One clear and obvious element of knowing something is believing it (if you don’t even believe it, you could hardly be said to know it). But I’ve had students tell me that, according to the way they use the terms, if you know something then you can’t believe it and if you believe it then you can’t know it. I mean, they might as well be saying squares are round and circles are square! I still don’t have a handle on this ‘goopy’ use of the term ‘belief’, but I suspect it might be prevalent.
Romney is a fraud.
#13
Evolution is not a belief system. It’s science. I don’t need to believe in it. I need to understand it.”
That’s great. If a candidate answers that [and I like their platform] I’m voting for them.
It’s simple: they’re using ‘belief’ in the sense of ‘faith’ or ‘espousing a group of statements as a stance or position’.
You can’t have faith in a thing and have knowledge of it, because faith is unjustified belief, and knowledge is what justifies beliefs.
In all the discussion here about “belief” used with “evolution” no one has pointed out: The question was “Do you believe IN evolution?” It’s the “in” that really, really grates. Like “Do you believe in the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown?”
I believe evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life. I don’t believe IN it.
Dave2: “Belief” in the epistemology sense is not objectionable, and also not what is being talked about.
Bill Dauphin: As for violent catastrophe, the people who run the doomsday clock agree with you. Things are getting worse. Terrorism, for example, as predicted by the experts (not those in charge), has gone way up.