Should "creationist" be denied the chance to become president?
Can you name one president that was not a creationist? Can you name one president that was a Darwinian?
|
Wow. I don't even know where to start, I can't go through and comment on every comment. No, most Presidents were not Creationists the way Palin is a Creationist. They managed to strike a balance, understanding that the science behind Evolution makes it as close to fact as anything can ever possibly be, (sure you can argue the Earth is flat, how do you prove it's not?) they, like most only semi-insane daddy in the sky worshipers said, "okay, god just got the ball rolling on evolution, and we evolved, and the Adam and Eve thing was a parable." The problem is, as I said in another post, if she chooses to ignore all the science behind evolution, what other science would she choose to ignore? As far as faith being all we have to go on in both cases since there were no witnesses, again I defer to science. Eye witnesses are the least reliable sources on the earth anyway. If 10 people witness a murder I guarantee they'll describe 10 completely different murders. Further, the New Testament wasn't compiled until 500 years after Jesus died. None of the original sources of the New or Old Testament are around today for anyone to look at. The two oldest sources, Mark, and a source scholars named O, disagree on many, many points. I could go on all day about how silly the whole thing is, but I'll stop there. In a perfect world Pyg would be right, and yes, a persons religious beliefs would not effect policy. That sadly is not the case. Here's a good article about what our founding father's really envisioned as far as us becoming a secular state. link It's a great article and makes me feel so much less alone in world gone Jesus crazy, my favorite qoute from Adams - I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! 1
point
You clain to know Palin's specific "brand" of creationism and the specific "brand" of creationism other presidents have had. I'm skeptical of that claim. You also brush off the fact that there are checks and balances in our government. The president isn't all powerful. If your argument is that you're opposed to her being a creationist because you fear what other science she "chooses to ignore" then why not focus on the specific science she should adhere to before being allowed to be president. Are you saying that the previous presidents that did not meet your "scientific" standards failed our country? If so, how? Can you give us an example where it was necesary for a president to believe in evolution? Is it possible for a president to not meet your "scientific" standards and still be a good president? If not, why not? 3
points
Well if you want an example of what other science she chooses to ignore just look at global warming. The proponents of global warming being caused (or at least affected) by man far outweigh the skeptics and yet Palin chooses to ignore this science. Let me make it clear here that I am talking about scientists view of global warming not any politicians (Al Gore is well intentioned but he is not a scientist, there are plenty of credible sources to listen to). Side: Science is important
This may be an slightly unpopular view. Whilst being a creationist should not be a reason to stop someone from becoming president (it shouldn't be legislated against, for example), I simply can't imagine someone being in charge of one of the most powerful countries in the world who doesn't accept an irrifutable fact. When someone becomes president, there are going to be a lot of tough choices to make, and one hopes that this person has the ability to weigh up the evidence and make decisions based on the strength of that evidence. If a president doesn't accept evolution then you seriously have to doubt their ability to be able to do this. The person at the helm should be someone who doesn't allow their religious beliefs to completely cloud their judgement in making decisions. If they can't accept evolution, how can they accept, for example, there there is not enough evidence to go to war? I would never ever ever vote in a creationist, as the very fact they are makes them inable to do their job properly. Side: Science is important
1
point
OK, so I think that what you are saying is that the ability to think scientifically is essential for the position of the presidency. However you use an unscientific argument to support your view. Where's the data showing that creationists are unable to do their job properly? What scientific experiments did you conduct that led to your conclusion? Maybe you're making a reference to someone else scientific discovery. Can you provide that? Side: Science is important
I don't need to use a scientific argument because the title of the debate implies that you are asking for our opinions. There are no scientific studies into creationism specifically, but there are studies showing that atheists are more intelligent than the religious. I can also provide a wealth of information to show that evolution is fact and creationism is false. I feel we should be very careful of electing someone who, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, chooses to ignore it. My opinion is that someone who believes that the earth is 4000 years old and that god made us from dirt in the face of irrefutable proof is not fit to lead a country. That's my opinion, which is why I said *"this will be an unpopular view." However, I would like to point you specifically to http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/ And before you say that I talked about down voting opinionated articles, I was specifically talking about arguments that present opinion as fact; not arguments that begin with "this is going to be an unpopular view," clearly indicating that the argument is containing my opinion and not a scientific and verifiable fact. Side: Science is important
Of coarse not! I am not a creationist but I have no problem with a creationist President so long as they understand the separation of church and state. Who ever is a creationist and doesn't understand this shouldn't be running. I don't think believing in god will keep anyone from doing their part in government so long as they understand their role, I am fine. I think it's a bad idea, overall, to deny anyone a place in a democratic government, unless of coarse they aren't able to be in the place they seek or they are corrupt. Side: Absolutely not
1
point
No. When you decide who is best for the job, you have like 5,000 other things to concider before wondering if they are a creationist. It doesn't work like this: Creationist:..................√ Supports my views:......√ Good looking:...............√ I love this president:.....√ Well I guess that's my president!!! I don't know what Matt Damon has ever said about anything, so if you're hinting at something, I don't get it. :/ Side: Absolutely not
Lincoln was a Republican, and it used to be the liberal party. If you also remember history, the south was predominantly Democratic until the Civil Rights movement, when the party started to take a more progressive view towards the issues most of the Southerners of that time held dear. They shouldn't be denied the chance, and the election should really determine it. But since our Constitution and Bill of Rights have a system of checks and balances, we will not have to worry about religion becoming official/legal/etc..in theory. If it does (and there are certain things that indicate that this country is heading towards something unpleasant), then it'll be gradual, but you can expect massive protests in the streets once it starts pissing people off. Until then, everyone will unfortunately be apathetic! Side: Absolutely not
1
point
I think so, a person who is not willing to accept large amounts of facts that are variable through tests is someone who is not gonna be willing to accept facts about domestic and international issues such as "national security" that they don't like. religion has a strong impact on how you think, even if you don't advocate or try to impose your religion on others you will still be affected by it when it comes time to make choices. i do not want someone who is not willing to accept what has been largely proven true and accepted by a large population, wielding weapons that were developed using science and proven theories that can annihilate people, vehicles and entire cities. religion is a personal matter, it should not decide policy when that policy affects populations of other people, but ardent believers will not be able or even willing to keep them apart and then people will die because of others religious beliefs and so far those have been massacres. Side: Science is important
1
point
Actually i wasn't thinking that much about palin when i added my response, i was thinking of someone who believes completely in creationism/intelligent design. all i know is that she wants creationism to be taught in schools. i am more worried about her knowledge and her belief that being close to Russia gives her foreign policy experience with Russia. if it sounds like I'm accusing her its OK, as a person who has the ability to become the most powerful person in the united states she should be questioned and what she believes is important to the population of the US. you don't have to be an Arab to be dangerous if you believe ardently in something with no factual backing, a christian can be just as dangerous if not more so. Side: Science is important
1
point
JFK was arguably one of the best contemporary Democratic presidents. Ronald Regan was arguably one of the best contemporary Republican presidents. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that they were both creationist. Therefore, I don't think we should deny someone the presidency just because they are creationists. If we do, it would be like cutting our nose to spite our face. We would be missing out on all those good creationist presidents. Side: Science is important
well, the best Republican was Abraham Lincoln, and the best Democrat was FDR. Lincoln was a deist (until his son died) but he was never a creationist. i don't know about FDR. otherwise, i do agree that religion really doesn't effect policy, but philosophy does. an atheist can do fine as a president, but a nihilist sociopath... not so much. and a guy who believes that infidels or heathens should be burned... same thing. Side: Absolutely not
1
point
1
point
Why should they be denied...they've always been Presidents! The way the word has been bandied about of late one would think it is something new that blew in off Mt. McKinley! There are basically two ways of thinking about how the origins of the world and it's people began. If you believe in God it naturally follows that you also believe God created the world and all in it. If you don't, then you believe in the Evolution of man better known as the Darwinian ideology. Both are taken on faith alone since no eyewitnesses exist, no written words to back up Darwin. The only written word that exists is the Bible which is, arguably, the only account handed down from generation to generation and compiled as more information was forthcoming. I am not aware of any former Presidents being an avid supporter of Darwinist ideology from an elective or personal standpoint. Certainly other beliefs exist or have existed within the ranks of top government such as Abraham Lincoln being, what was known then, known as a Calvinist Deist almost up to the time of his assassination. Side: Absolutely not
There are definitely Christians who believe in the theory of evolution. Man can be consciously created through evolution, in their thinking. It is not incompatible with Christianity. And I have to take issue with the phrase "Darwinian Ideology." It's generally used as a pejorative, to imply that one lives his life according to social Darwinism, which is to Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as the Ayatollah is to Islam. And Evolution is not taken on faith. If one takes the time to learn about it, he can understand every mechanism of its operation, and demonstrate it quite easily. Wait, are you kidding about the Bible? You believe it because it's old? Side: Absolutely not
1
point
0
points
No, I'm not kidding about the Bible...not for one second. It is all we have to go by. Did I say I believed it because it was old? no, I didn't! On the other hand, Darwinism, outside of his original book on the theory has no back-up. I don't find it to be not believable as a matter of fact, I find the theory fascinating. There are people who think that God created the world, Deists I believe, then abandoned it for all intents and purposes. There's where Darwinism can pick up the thread, if you will. Darwinism is an ideology and I do not use it in the pejorative. Spencer first used his idea of Social Darwinism as rather a survival of the fittest theory. For me, Social Darwinism is one of the most destructive theories and has little, if no, basis in Darwin's theory. Darwin himself never extended it that far! I'm sorry to tell you that everything I have read on the subject tells me that evolution is taken on faith and cannot be proved. You can either believe Darwin or not. You may be able to demonstrate it but you cannot prove it. When you can, please direct me to the information and I'll be most happy to read it. Side: A dichotomy
Sorry Kuk, but you're just plain wrong when you say that evolution is taken on faith alone. Evolution has overwhelming evidence behind it. I agree with the rest of what you said, but that one remark was just too much. Side: Science is important
1
point
|
