If he were to buck and wing, with a bit of soft shoe as well, this might make for a good dance routine.

I wonder if Chris Matthews believes in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. As a Roman Catholic and all.

(And no, this doesn’t mean I’m suddenly a fan of Chris Matthews, by the way.)

Charles, you're killing me here! ;)

Pwnd by Chris Matthews. What a fool.

re: #5 pink freud

Pwnd by Chris Matthews. What a fool.

Just think how hard that was to do, or how easy the target was.

Is Chris reading LGF?

re: #8 Sharmuta

Is Chris reading LGF?

Wouldn't he lose the leg tingle if he did?

re: #7 buzzsawmonkey

First question: what the hell difference does it make if Pence "believes in evolution?"

The answer is obvious. It matters because he's beholden to the religious right and even if he does accept the fact of evolution, he CAN'T SAY IT publicly.

It really is a perfect example of a major problem in the GOP.

Tailspin.

Isn't global warming a bit hard to decipher with all the conflicting viewpoints/agendas?

This is why I vote for Democrats in Texas. The alternatives are either the Ron Pauls or the Shiite Baptists like the head of the Texas School Board. I'm a social liberal, fiscal conservative, but a science guy. (click the nic) The insanity down here is pretty entrenched.

Yo Republicans - it's OK to believe in God AND real science.

re: #10 Charles

The answer is obvious. It matters because he's beholden to the religious right and even if he does accept the fact of evolution, he CAN'T SAY IT publicly.

It really is a perfect example of a major problem in the GOP.

But, but, but... don't you keep saying there is no far-right extremism? Now I'm sooo confused.

/ is it sarcasm, or is it memorex?

Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't have punted the question off to "let the children decide."

Well- I hate to say this but I thought Chris handled that very well in that he didn't ask the same question 50 times in that 5 minutes. The last time I watched Hannity and Colmes, Sean asked the same question over and over while his guest waffled as bad as Pence did here. But sean didn't move on, or allow the conversation to flow- it was the same damn question over and over. He came off as a rabid dog with a bone. I never went back to watching.

As for Pence- that was pathetic. After all that waffling, the only thing Chris got out of him was he supports the scientific method. But how can I believe that when he can't even say the mechanism God used in creating this world was evolution, as the scientific method has shown for 150 years?

re: #18 Alcove-One

Bye now.

Amazing how this contrasts with Palin's answer to perky Katie.

Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?

Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle.

But ask any media member today and they would probably answer that Palin doesn't believe in evolution.

The light of the sunset on the pines and firs at the top of Mt. Wilson, San Gabriel Mountains of California. The Towercam, Pacific time zone.

Won't last too long.

Negatives all around.
that's my position and sticking to it.

/tired.

re: #18 Alcove-One

It's a political problem that the GOP has to solve, or get used to all Democratic administrations, all the time.

Yeesh, just saw an MSNBC ad for Keith Olbermann to discuss GOP branding problems.

I really shouldn't channel surf anywhere near the cable news channels unless I want an aneurysm.

re: #17 buzzsawmonkey

It's not a trap. There's a simple way out of it. You say, "yes, I believe evolution is valid science."

If that's what he believes.

The fact that he couldn't say it is not "falling into a trap" -- it's revealing the existence of a huge freaking elephant in the elephant's living room.

re: #17 buzzsawmonkey

He explains his reason for asking the question at :30.

/70% of the GOP candidates weren't beholden, including the nominee, just last Fall

re: #14 FrogMarch

Yo Republicans - it's OK to believe in God AND real science.

Not in Texas. Not with this Republican Party. Not with its platform. The rational disconnect is complete. The Governor says that secession isn't off the table to the anti-O crowd and he gets a pass. The head of the Board of Education is a young earther who is pushing to change every textbook in America. What choice do I have? I've got to vote with the rationalists.

re: #28 Killian Bundy

[Video]

/70% of the GOP candidates weren't beholden, including the nominee, just last Fall

I know, you like to deny the existence of the elephant; I got that a long time ago.

Barry Goldwater:

"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent.

If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism."

Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

re: #10 Charles

...even if he does accept the fact of evolution, he CAN'T SAY IT publicly.

I don't buy it. I think that a politician who is willing to stand up for what he believes in, whatever that may be, will earn the respect of the voting public. If he is a creationist, then say so. If he believes in evolution, say that. Don't pussyfoot around the issue and piss everyone off. Be man enough to show people what you really stand for and let them decide whether you are worthy of their vote. This is why people HATE politicians.

re: #26 Charles

It's not a trap. There's a simple way out of it. You say, "yes, I believe evolution is valid science."

If that's what he believes.

The fact that he couldn't say it is not "falling into a trap" -- it's revealing the existence of a huge freaking elephant in the elephant's living room.

Here, here. If he is not pandering to the base he is hiding bias.

re: #28 Killian Bundy

[Video]/70% of the GOP candidates weren't beholden, including the nominee, just last Fall

Even if that were truly the case, which I highly doubt it is, the 2008 election is over; and we lost if you hadn't noticed.

re: #10 Charles

The answer is obvious. It matters because he's beholden to the religious right and even if he does accept the fact of evolution, he CAN'T SAY IT publicly.

It really is a perfect example of a major problem in the GOP.

What if he doesn't believe in the validity of evolution as the explanation for the origins of life on Earth?

What if his beliefs are more consistent with a literal reading of Genesis?

Does that make him unfit for office?

re: #31 researchok

The GOP has come a long way since those words of Goldwater's, in exactly the wrong direction.

IMHO the GOP is

Toast

re: #36 Charles

The GOP has come a long way since those words of Goldwater's, in exactly the wrong direction.

From Goldwater to McCain, what a contrast.

re: #31 researchok

I ♥ Goldwater

re: #35 stuiec

What if he doesn't believe in the validity of evolution as the explanation for the origins of life on Earth?

What if his beliefs are more consistent with a literal reading of Genesis?

Does that make him unfit for office?

I will not vote for someone who denies evolution, except under very extreme circumstances where the alternative would be much worse.

So for me the answer is yes, it makes him unfit for office.

It's just pathetic that this is an issue in the 21st century.

re: #31 researchok

"In your ♥ you know he's right."

re: #41 buzzsawmonkey

I would like to see Pence affirm an understanding, or at least acceptance, of evolution, yes--but only after he'd held Mathews' feet to the fire for a bit, and asked Mathews why he feels it necessary to know this.

Well, you may have liked to see that, but what you DID see is far more revealing.

re: #31 researchok

"If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both."

Words that have come back to haunt and humble us in the last election. The far-right sure threw their hissy-fit and temper tantrum since McCain was the standard bearer.

Yeah, those principles are being applied with O in office.

re: #39 Sharmuta

I ♥ Goldwater

I ♥ AuH₂O

re: #35 stuiec

What if he doesn't believe in the validity of evolution as the explanation for the origins of life on Earth?

What if his beliefs are more consistent with a literal reading of Genesis?

Does that make him unfit for office?

Makes him unfit for a driver's license as far as I'm concerned.

re: #28 Killian Bundy

[Video]/70% of the GOP candidates weren't beholden, including the nominee, just last Fall

Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution
A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.
[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

And by doing so, they are marginalizing themselves as a viable political party, giving power to the liberal Democrats by default. This obsession with Republicans over the Book of Genesis is costing us our money and freedom as the Democrats take both.

At what point will freedom-loving people who live in the real world and accept the reality of the biological sciences get fed up enough with Republicans living in the Dark Ages?

Something has to give.

By the way, it's not "signing a loyalty oath" to say you accept the science of evolution, just as it's not "signing a loyalty oath" to say you accept that the earth orbits around the sun.

It's accepting reality.

That was painful to watch. Pence knows exactly what to expect when going on that show. He has no one to blame but himself.

"Do you believe in evolution?"

"Uh...um...uh...eh...uh...um...uh...let me just say first of all um...uh...eh..."

re: #27 Killgore Trout

He explains his reason for asking the question at :30.

It's disingenuous for Matthews to challenge Pence's belief in science at several points and then to accept that global warming is an article of faith at other points.

If the Democrats keep going down this road, they will stake out a position in which all religious believers are bad and wrong because some aspect or other of their belief systems are "anti-science." If a person is anti-science, therefore unfit for public office, because he believes it possible that "God created the heavens and Earth, the air and seas and everything in them" without resorting to or relying exclusively on evolution as one of His tools -- then how can a person not be considered anti-science, therefore unfit for public office, if he believes that God became incarnate as a human being who was born, lived and died, and then after lying dead three days, spontaneously re-animated himself?

You think it's a winning political strategy in the United States to say that believing in things that cannot be proved or verified by science -- or even things that science flatly contradicts -- makes you a kook who shouldn't have access to the public square? Even the hard left contains large segments of people who despise traditional religion but who believe deeply in things that are at best unscientific, and at worst scientifically impossible.

re: #46 mfarmer1

You've just crossed over into simple bigotry with that comment.

(And this is an atheist saying this to you, by the way.)

re: #21 Tman

Amazing how this contrasts with Palin's answer to perky Katie.

Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?

Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle.

But ask any media member today and they would probably answer that Palin doesn't believe in evolution.

Also from Palin:

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate she said, “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

The guy could have and should have just answered the question and then moved on. Lets start with that so I don't get dinged to badly.

But would Matthews have moved on? What would the next questions of non-consequence of been? I don't think we can let the media dictate the questions all the damn time.

This county is going bankrupt.

The southern border is still wide ass open.

Did I say we are going totally bankrupt?

We are fighting 2 wars with a possible 3rd (Pakistan) opening up.

The CIA has been trashed.

Did I mention we are going bankrupt with these multi-trillion dollar deficits?

If you get the people asking the wrong questions then who cares what the answers are.

Thoughts?

This is a brutal indictment of the religious right wing of the GOP.

"Excruciating" is a very good description of that interview.

Matthews wiped the floor with this guy.

Somewhat related to the post, there was an article about people trying to pet snakes, and getting bitten, that made me wonder if creationists believe in the Darwin awards.

It speaks volumes of Pence's constituents that he would feel coerced to do this humiliating tap dance in response to a straightforward question.

The distortion spread by the DI and the creationists is that if you accept the science of evolution you must be an atheist. In their minds, evolutionary theory is not just about how life evolved, but how life itself began. Many under-educated people believe that lie and thus equate accepting the theory of evolution with atheism.

Truth is each one of the assorted scientific theories about how life began are all weak and have gaping holes. There is no logical reason to "believe" any of them. They do make for interesting speculation though.

It's even more of a shame because Pence is one of the Republicans who can claim to be a fiscal "reformer" with his recent anti-earmark crusade. But then again I wouldn't be at all surprised if his votes since 2001 or possible past earmarks taken might make him a hypocrite on that front.

A religion that can't make peace with science is a religion with a faulty doctrine.

Great religions embrace truth.

As has been so often here, mighty faith in God does not preclude acceptance of evolution.

re: #52 stuiec

Being religious or spiritual are not the same as not believing in science.

re: #53 Occasional Reader

You've just crossed over into simple bigotry with that comment.

(And this is an atheist saying this to you, by the way.)

And this Christian Old-Earther just updinged you. Excellent.

Had this question been asked in front an audience of his constituency I am pretty sure his answer would have been no. Given that this was a national audience he waffled yet gave the impression that he still does not believe in evolution. Of course he still remains a politician so waffling is de regur.

Why is it so difficult for them to accept that creationism is a belief system. Given the numbers of Republicans that do not in believe in evolution I think it only reflects that this nation needs to bolster the teaching of evolution and science rather than give in to those that hawk the pseudo-science of ID. (At the same time it's interesting to note that only 21% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans in an Washington Post/ABC poll.)

re: #13 austin_blue

This is why I vote for Democrats in Texas. The alternatives are either the Ron Pauls or the Shiite Baptists like the head of the Texas School Board. I'm a social liberal, fiscal conservative, but a science guy. (click the nic) The insanity down here is pretty entrenched.

We're about to move to OK, and it looks like I'll be doing the same. At least the democrats in OK seem sane.

To no one in particular: Just because Chris Matthews is a shameless, obnoxious Democrat hack that does not let Pence off the hook.

This goes far beyond pathetic Charles.

Someone needs to show Pence where to find his nads.

re: #68 MrPaulRevere

Pence made a very easy target for a very stupid "journalist".

26 Charles

It's not a trap. There's a simple way out of it. You say, "yes, I believe evolution is valid science."

If that's what he believes.

The fact that he couldn't say it is not "falling into a trap" -- it's revealing the existence of a huge freaking elephant in the elephant's living room.

This is the whole problem with conservatives airing their privately held beliefs. It's no one's business whether they believe in evolution or not - but because some are making it a political issue by trying to pass laws about it, it's fair game.

Unless Mike Pence himself either supports or is trying to pass laws regarding creationism in schools, he should have said "None of your business" to Matthews.

re: #49 Charles

By the way, it's not "signing a loyalty oath" to say you accept the science of evolution, just as it's not "signing a loyalty oath" to say you accept that the earth orbits around the sun.

It's accepting reality.

What's so hard about I believe in God, and I know the science and science that supports evolution to be true. One is faith and one is science, one a spiritual reality the other a physical reality. Both have their place, but should be keep in their place.

re: #70 rwmofo

Someone needs to show Pence where to find his nads.

Pence knows which side his bread is buttered on. Has nothing to do with 'nads.

re: #41 buzzsawmonkey

You write,

Yes, I know that Congressional votes determine federal science funding, and that is a concern; but it is highly unlikely that Pence or any other Congressman will be able to micromanage such funding.

Talk to any scientist at a major research university in the U.S. and you'll hear the egregious degree to which the Republican Congress slashed funding to scientific research and disease prevention.

This gradual process did not make big headlines. But they've already "micromanaged" such funding, and we'll all suffer from it, for decades.

re: #72 ladycatnip

26 Charles

This is the whole problem with conservatives airing their privately held beliefs. It's no one's business whether they believe in evolution or not - but because some are making it a political issue by trying to pass laws about it, it's fair game.

Unless Mike Pence himself either supports or is trying to pass laws regarding creationism in schools, he should have said "None of your business" to Matthews.

The fact is that Republicans are trying to pass laws to get creationism into schools in more than a dozen states. Right now. And in Louisiana, Bobby Jindal succeeded.

So this is not any kind of a trap, and it is a highly relevant political question.

OMG This is our guy from Indiana..How f'g embarrassing..We'll... he'll be gone in 2010 by a reasonable Liberal saving us from the kooky religious rightwing nuts in Indiana..Way to go Mike..

re: #66 Gus 802

better answer--make a joke along the lines of "hey, I barely passed biology and that was 25 years ago. let's talk about taxes and stuff that I actually do."

That kind of response makes me cringe as a scientist, but it's pretty much acceptable in all social circles, and would have ended the line of questioning.

sigh

Time for a little more Hayek:

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.[Link: www.fahayek.org...]

thank goodness there are not six Pence

Right-wing political corrrectness

Everybody (including me) loves to mock PC. It's been around for a long, long time, like a certain man of wealth and taste.

But there's just as damn much of it on the right as the left.

So, I'm going to throw out the suggestion that we start a list of some of the PC myths and legends, misconceptions and pious lies on the right.

Here's a start:

1. There is no such thing as global warming. Or if there is, there is no way people could possibly have anything to do with it. Or if they do, there is nothing we can do about it without ruining our economy. Or if there is, we shouldn't do it anyway, because it's all a demonic mind-control stealth taxation New World Order plot to create a Single Global Currency and take away your Hummer.

2. Creationists/IDers just want equal time, because one theory is as good as another, and what do you have against God, anyway?

3. Government regulation is always evil.

4. The income tax is unconstitutional.

5. Being against war always makes you an idiot.

6. There is no such thing as a good liberal - they are all secret commies who hate this country and want to take away every one of our freedoms.

7. The Canadians hate their health-care system and would all come here for treatment if we would let 'em.

8. Muslims are [fill in the blank].

9. Glenn Beck may be an idiot, but he's our idiot. We need to support him because there is no other choice. Ditto Spencer, Geller, Coulter, and [fill in the blank].

10. There is no American empire. Everything we've ever done abroad was out of the pure and virtuous goodness of our hearts.

That should get us started.

[reposted from a late comment on a thread from two days ago]

re: #40 Charles

I will not vote for someone who denies evolution, except under very extreme circumstances where the alternative would be much worse.

So for me the answer is yes, it makes him unfit for office.

It's just pathetic that this is an issue in the 21st century.

OK. May I clarify?

The Constitution makes it plain that there shall be no religious test for office. So the person in question is not "unqualified for office," in the sense that Obama is "qualified" to be President because he is a natural-born citizen above the age of 35 who's met the residency requirement.

He may be unfit in your estimation to receive your vote. That's your prerogative, and it's your prerogative to make your position plain to the public.

But I'd offer two additional thoughts.

First, the area where you and I agree completely is that public schools should teach evolution as the best scientific explanation for the world as it is, and should not teach Creationism or Intelligent Design as an alternative theory -- those are the province of religious instruction.

Second, we are supposed to be a tolerant society that values religious freedom and pluralism. When you go beyond excluding Creationism from public schools and start using "Creationist" as an epithet, it's inconsistent with your stated view that religious pluralism is a cherished American value. After all, I'd bet that most devout Muslims are strict creationists. Moreover, if Creationism is a backward, anti-scientific belief that has no place in the 21st century, what is the belief in Resurrection?

re: #72 ladycatnip

This is the whole problem with conservatives airing their privately held beliefs.

You are missing the point. Asking someone if they "believe" in evolution is like asking them if they believe in gravity.

re: #77 HoosierHoops

OMG This is our guy from Indiana..How f'g embarrassing..We'll... he'll be gone in 2010 by a reasonable Liberal saving us from the kooky religious rightwing nuts in Indiana..Way to go Mike..

Yeah, I hear ya. My guy is Jindal. Don't you just know there are more Chris Matthews out there that can't wait to ask Jindal the same question in front of a national audience.

re: #56 Spare O'Lake

This is a brutal indictment of the religious right wing of the GOP.

Fix'd?

And no, this doesn’t mean I’m suddenly a fan of Chris Matthews, by the way.

It is a sad example of how widespread piss poor critical thinking skills have become that you even need to make such a disclaimer.

re: #85 pink freud

To clarify: "MY guy" means he is from my state.

re: #86 laZardo

PIMF, lemme stretch that strike mark.

re: #56 Spare O'Lake

This is a brutal indictment of the religious right wing of the GOP.

OT

The UCI two weeks hate confab put on by Muslim Students Union
(Find it yourself on google... uci hate-fest 2009.) is cosponsored by
a raft of groups. Any clues about the weird sponsors? Did MSU
just make it up?

Afrikan Student Union
Alpha Epsilon Omega (Armenian frat)
Armenian Sorority
Armenian Student Association
Asian Pacific Student Association
Hip Hop Congress
Hindu Student Council
Pakistani Student Association
Society of Arab Students
Sikh Student Association
Radical Student Union
Vietnamese Action Committee
Young Americans for Liberty
Workers Student Alliance

Some of these are no surprise. Yet I checked all the A's
(Afrikans, Armenians, and Asian Pacificans) and NONE
of them even mention the event they are sponsoring.
Vietamese Action Committee ditto. Hindus and Sikhs
don't seem to maintain websites at all.

Thanks for any incite... or even following up with some
of these groups for a reality check.

ocelot

for some reason I can't upvote this post. But in any case, good post Charles.

re: #76 Charles

It's about votes and money.

As long as 'creationism' fills the coffers, look for the pols to do the dance. It's bad enough they lie to us. Now they want to force junk science down our throats.

Sickening.

re: #87 Slumbering Behemoth

It is a sad example of how widespread piss poor critical thinking skills have become that you even need to make such a disclaimer.

And how polarized and strong the political biases are that any criticism is sufficient for being declared an apostate, no matter which party one belongs to.

Recent Presidents who supported creationism:

Dwight Eisenhower
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush

Others of note:

Al Gore
Joe Lieberman
John McCain
Sarah Palin

Presidential Support for Creationism

McCain Keynote Speaker for Discovery Institute

How, exactly, does having a faith based belief in the origin of life make someone, or even a whole political party, even remotely "anti-science".

That's a stretch... and three-quarters.

Charles, I agree. Who can we get to slap all the Repubs upside the head so they'll stop this nonsense? Creationism is the LAST thing we need to worry about - it's craziness.

re: #83 Mich-again

You are missing the point. Asking someone if they "believe" in evolution is like asking them if they believe in gravity.

he could not answer the question and he is speaking for the GOP...he's looking out for his own ass...someone has to break the chain and he had his chance...coward...the GOP is sunk and he is a perfect example why

Re: #41 buzzsawmonkey

I don't want a Christian Fundamentalist making ANY choices for me - if a choice they make is moral, it is purely by accident, because they saw it in the bible.

Two great test questions are: Is the earth 6,000 years old, or 4.2 billion years old? Are living things the result of evolution over millions of years, or were we all put here by God in our present form?

If a congressman fails either of these tests, I will vote for someone else, even though I am a republican and fiscal conservative.

I think fiscal conservatives like me can be shocked out of our socks when we discover we have nothing in common with other republicans. We assumed because the fundamentalists voted for someone like Bush or McCain, that they understood the constitution and individual rights, but in fact, they just wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and stop gay marriage and stem cell research. Just look at Huckabee, a christian socialist. Its enough to make you vomit.

re: #72 ladycatnip

26 Charles

This is the whole problem with conservatives airing their privately held beliefs. It's no one's business whether they believe in evolution or not - but because some are making it a political issue by trying to pass laws about it, it's fair game.

Unless Mike Pence himself either supports or is trying to pass laws regarding creationism in schools, he should have said "None of your business" to Matthews.

It wouldn't be an issue in this day and age at all if the ID crowd hadn't spent the last few decades trying to get creationism back in schools. The issue was dead at the end of Reagan's second term.

re: #85 pink freud

Yeah, I hear ya. My guy is Jindal. Don't you just know there are more Chris Matthews out there that can't wait to ask Jindal the same question in front of a national audience.

This state is trended left..People like Rep. Burton only add to the perception of out of touch pols...

re: #64 Killgore Trout

Being religious or spiritual are not the same as not believing in science.

I understand that one can be religious and/or spiritual and believe in science. I believe in science, and I believe in God. (Though I confess to believing that God still dabbles in guiding the Universe He created now and then.)

But if one "doesn't believe in science," as in one believes in Newtonian mechanics and the germ theory of disease but stubbornly refuses to believe that the Universe as it exists today didn't spring up through random chance but was the result of a Creator with a design and plan -- does that mean his religion or spirituality is bad, wrong and evil? Must it be expunged, cast out from our midst?

re: #100 HoosierHoops

This state is trended trending left..People like Rep. Burton only add to the perception of out of touch pols...

PIMF

re: #95 Blue_Knight

The question was, 'do you believe in evolution?'
If Pence understands the science, it isn't a question about the origin of life.

re: #94 lightspeed

Others of note:

Al Gore

Al Gore invented Earth, Life, and the Internet.

/

re: #81 Cato the Elder

10. There is no American empire.

Um... that's not a "myth". There isn't one. Unless you postulate the silly-ass Antonio Negri definition of "empire".

(If there is one, by the way, I'd like to know why we're continually sending OUT money in the form of foreign aid, instead of taking IN our imperial tribute.)

Wow. This is one of the few times I've seen Mathews trounce someone for real on his show, and the first time it was someone who should have been more than equal to the challenge.

The others were often smalltime speakers and such on very local levels, not congressmen. That was brutal.

re: #78 funky chicken

better answer--make a joke along the lines of "hey, I barely passed biology and that was 25 years ago. let's talk about taxes and stuff that I actually do."

That kind of response makes me cringe as a scientist, but it's pretty much acceptable in all social circles, and would have ended the line of questioning.

sigh

That would be a good alternative. Not in speech but in the end in how one governs or speaks. I think there's a saying that goes to the effect of "what I believe and what makes good public policy are two different issues." That can be applied to ordinary human behavior or interactions. Sometimes we believe in certain things yet we act towards others in a more practical sense -- or in this case what makes better public policy.

Teaching evolution should be a non-issue and a requirement in public schools. The teaching of ID in schools even counter to science makes for bad public policy. And the belief in creationism which may be seen as an acceptable belief still makes for a poor public policy.

What if he doesn't believe in the validity of evolution as the explanation for the origins of life on Earth?

What if his beliefs are more consistent with a literal reading of Genesis?

Does that make him unfit for office?

Absolutely not. He has every right to hold office with such beliefs. But that is not the point. The point is twofold:

First, in order to win elections, candidates (and their party) must win a majority of votes. Republicans are failing to do that partly because of their rejection of science, causing enough voters to shy away from them.

The second point is that while in office, many of these Republicans want to teach their religion in public school science classes. Enough voters see this and they are rejecting Republicans at the polls a priori, with the effect being that liberal Democrats are winning elections.

Mike Pence is not just a fiscal conservative but perhaps the leading fiscal conservative in the House.

His equivications frustrate me, but I'm used to politicians therefore I'm used to equivications. I'm sure I disagree with him on several issues (I clearly do on science) but there is plenty of room for Mike Pence and me in a fiscally focused big tent party.

Powell Says Shrinking GOP Should Return To The Center

The Republican Party is in big trouble and needs to find a way to move back to the middle of the country, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday.

Powell said the GOP is "getting smaller and smaller" and "that's not good for the nation." He also said he hopes that emerging GOP leaders, such as House Minority Whip Cantor, will not keep repeating mantras of the far right.

"The Republican Party is in deep trouble," Powell told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services," he said. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."

How do you get closer to the center than McCain without nominating a Bonkey?

/color me baffled

re: #82 stuiec

When you go beyond excluding Creationism from public schools and start using "Creationist" as an epithet, it's inconsistent with your stated view that religious pluralism is a cherished American value.

Creationism does not equal religion. And evolution does not equal atheism. Only the most fanatical fundamentalists believe those two premises to be true.

And the real problem is that creationists are never happy with simply keeping their beliefs to themselves -- time after time we've seen that they're determined to try to push, sneak, and bully their nonsense into schools -- to get at the brains of other people's children.

And the GOP invariably is right there to help them do it. It's a political issue, and while creationists may have a right to believe what they want, and even stunt their own children's intellects if they wish, they are never willing to leave it at that.

to steal borrow a phrase from a very wise lizard
" evil two-party money cult"
"like that"

re: #104 jaunte

The question was, 'do you believe in evolution?'
If Pence understands the science, it isn't a question about the origin of life.

he merely toed the party line...the cat's outs the bag amigo...a huge mistake to put this guy up there to get schooled...if he had other principles he could have expressed them...coward...the GOP is doomed as far as I'm concerned

re: #104 jaunte

The question was, 'do you believe in evolution?'
If Pence understands the science, it isn't a question about the origin of life.

The question was pointedly regarding the 'theory of evolution'. Not simply 'evolution'.

Two different things.

I'm from Detroit. I know a Dodge when I see one

re: #81 Cato the Elder

Right-wing political corrrectness

PIMF. Sorry there were only three "Rs" in "corrrectness". It should have been corrrectness, with an emphatic Teutonic trill.

re: #68 MrPaulRevere

Hmmm. For a "Democrat hack," Matthews sure did sing the praises of George W. Bush for years in a row. Do you not remember the embarrassing video of Matthews' fawning report on the "Mission Accomplished" landing?

re: #84 buzzsawmonkey

Respectfully, the manner of asking has nothing to do with it. He knew what to expect going on that show. Don't blame Chris Matthews because Pence was squirming.

re: #90 ocelot

They all seem probable supporters of such crap to me. Young Americans for Liberty is a Paulian group also involved in the tea parties.

re: #100 HoosierHoops

This state is trended left..People like Rep. Burton only add to the perception of out of touch pols...

Here's out of touch. A pr0n star challenging Vitter for Senate? Boggles the mind.

re: #63 researchok

A religion that can't make peace with science is a religion with a faulty doctrine.

Great religions embrace truth.

As has been so often here, mighty faith in God does not preclude acceptance of evolution.

Okay. So if a religion is faulty in that way, should we outlaw it? Shun its members? Relegate them to the status of second-class citizens?

How should we treat defective religions?

And what agency should we create to evaluate religions and pass judgment on them?

And which beliefs, and how many, that are irreconcilable with science form the dividing line between an acceptable religion and one that's faulty?

re: #116 Blue_Knight

The question was pointedly regarding the 'theory of evolution'. Not simply 'evolution'.

Two different things.

Could you explain the difference?

re: #116 Blue_Knight

The question was pointedly regarding the 'theory of evolution'. Not simply 'evolution'.

Two different things.

How so?

re: #14 FrogMarch

Yo Republicans - it's OK to believe in God AND real science.

Apparently, "hiddenlizard" disagrees with you.

re: #82 stuiec

Moreover, if Creationism is a backward, anti-scientific belief that has no place in the 21st century, what is the belief in Resurrection?

To answer your question on Resurrection, look at you own word--belief. That is fine and lies within your personal outlook.
As regards Creationism, that is also a belief, but lies outside the domain of science.

re: #73 jcm

That's what McCain and Romney said.

re: #14 FrogMarch

Yo Republicans - it's OK to believe in God AND real science.

Then why don't they? What about the history of all religions' war against science?

Creationism is just a symptom, the cause is Americans holding onto religion because they think it is the source of morality. They hold altruism as the only valid code of morality, and therefore accept all the other nonsense attached to religion. That is why they also can't support capitalism because it is a selfish, this-worldly system.

re: #109 buzzsawmonkey

If you would vote for a Cynthia McKinney over a Mike Pence solely on the grounds that the McKinney answered your questions about the age of the earth correctly, you are an ass.

I agree.

To be perfectly clear; of COURSE I would rather vote for someone who gets these questions right. But there are all sorts of utterly wicked motherf***rs hungry for power who would agree with me 100% on evolution and the origin of the universe, and who should be nowhere near the levers of power.

re: #94 lightspeed

I respect and give due to Real Scientists with true endeavors..
The last group of people I would listen too ever are Politicians in DC.. And when those people even start acting like they understand Science then I get really worried...

re: #126 Slumbering Behemoth

Apparently, "hiddenlizard" disagrees with you.

I certainly do!

re: #118 Cato the Elder

PIMF. Sorry there were only three "Rs" in "corrrectness". It should have been corrrectness, with an emphatic Teutonic trill.

I prefer a Latin tongue roll. It's more romantic.

Rome burns and this is the battle that the GOP wants to wage? Gay Marriage and Creationism? Good grief.

I just watched again, this is appalling. To allow Chrissy "twitch leg" Matthews to tear you up on such a simple question is ridiculous. For a paltry minority of 25 percent of the base he's tap dancing like a crazed marionette on acid. It's nauseating.

re: #48 Steve Rogers

Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution
A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.
[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

And by doing so, they are marginalizing themselves as a viable political party, giving power to the liberal Democrats by default. This obsession with Republicans over the Book of Genesis is costing us our money and freedom as the Democrats take both.

At what point will freedom-loving people who live in the real world and accept the reality of the biological sciences get fed up enough with Republicans living in the Dark Ages?

Something has to give.

Just 15 years ago it appeared as if the Democrat Party was near its end at least at the federal level. It's not that the rejection of evolution alone has been responsible for the decline of the Republican Party. However, there has been an overall successful effort by Democrats linking the nutty religious right complete with dinosaur versus man at rest stops along I-10 that's making the connection stick now.

The problem however is in the poll above. It's not just a small but healthy percentage of kooks but a much larger problem. The extreme religious right has defined the Republican Party in the last decade or so, and makes it easy to attack and ridicule.

The extreme nuts on the left are so fractured and all over the place that it's hard to keep hammering away at all of them successfully. It's much easier to focus on a large and consistent group as the left has done very well in identifying craziness en mass on the right.

This poll is frightening to say the least. The Republican Party needs to officially distance itself from those in the religious right who vote primarily on matters of faith even at the expense of losing the Evangelicals for good. It could be a very long time before the Republican Party makes a comeback, if ever, as long as Evangelicals continue to influence the party as they do now.

Something has to give? I hope so. And quickly.

re: #109 buzzsawmonkey

If you would vote for a Cynthia McKinney over a Mike Pence solely on the grounds that the McKinney answered your questions about the age of the earth correctly, you are an ass.

Hmm, that got me thinking. What if we clone Cynthia McKinny and Mike Pence into one person? //

re: #122 pink freud

Here's out of touch. A pr0n star challenging Vitter for Senate? Boggles the mind.

Yes, but does she believe in Evolution or Intelligent Design? My bet is her answer to this question would be a blank stare and uncomfortable smile.

re: #134 laZardo

I prefer a Latin tongue roll. It's more romantic.

Wine helps a lot

re: #109 buzzsawmonkey

If you would vote for a Cynthia McKinney over a Mike Pence solely on the grounds that the McKinney answered your questions about the age of the earth correctly, you are an ass.

And from what I've read on this thread, we will be ruled by tyrants for many years to come.

re: #102 stuiec

But if one "doesn't believe in science," as in one believes in Newtonian mechanics and the germ theory of disease but stubbornly refuses to believe that the Universe as it exists today didn't spring up through random chance but was the result of a Creator with a design and plan -- does that mean his religion or spirituality is bad, wrong and evil? Must it be expunged, cast out from our midst?

Once again; the two are not mutually exclusive. One can believe in god and accept basic scientific concepts such as evolution, Newtonian physics and the Copernican model of the solar system. Many Muslims have difficulty reconciling science with religion which is why they have a backwards and unenlightened culture. People who can not reconcile their faith with the reality we live in are not going to make good leaders.

re: #121 Killgore Trout

They all seem probable supporters of such crap to me. Young Americans for Liberty is a Paulian group also involved in the tea parties.

Libertarians like Ron Paul have a detailed history of being anti-American, like supporting the PLO, the Confederacy, blaming the US for 9/11, and defending the USSR. I kid you not. They simply hate governments as such and want anarchy.

re: #134 laZardo

I prefer a Latin tongue roll. It's more romantic.

Like this?

re: #123 stuiec

People are free to believe whatever they wish.

That said, all religious beliefs are personal beliefs. None deserve special treatment and none belong in the school system.

You know, the way it's supposed to be.

re: #131 buzzsawmonkey

And no, I have not blamed Mathews a bit--as you will realize if you read what I have actually written instead of what your prejudices lead you to see. I blame Pence for his incompetence in dealing with Mathews' question.

I'm glad Pence did this interview, because he inadvertently revealed the sheer pervasiveness of the GOP's problem with anti-scientific views.

Pence had to tapdance because powerful voting blocs in his party are ignorant about what the theory of evolution actually is, (after imbibing oceans of misinformation) and are intolerant of politicians holding beliefs that they feel may call their own into question.

re: #78 funky chicken

better answer--make a joke along the lines of "hey, I barely passed biology and that was 25 years ago. let's talk about taxes and stuff that I actually do."

And an even better answer, "Well, Chris, evolution is an observable fact. I assume you meant to ask me about the theory of natural selection as posited by Darwin to explain speciation." and watch Matthews stutter in response like the dolt he is.

#83 Mich-again

You are missing the point. Asking someone if they "believe" in evolution is like asking them if they believe in gravity.

As usual the conservatives are bringing this upon themselves. To make creationism any kind of campaign or political platform is beyond the powers of stupid. I have believed God created all things for the last 50-something years and until now it had absolutely nothing to do with any of my political beliefs.

It's so disappointing when I see a conservative who is so appealing only to discover they are a creationist. Like marrying the perfect woman and on your honeymoon you discover she has a penis. Totally spoils the mood

re: #123 stuiec

Okay. So if a religion is faulty in that way, should we outlaw it? Shun its members? Relegate them to the status of second-class citizens?

No. Maintaining the right to clearly state one's opinion about such beliefs is all that is needed.

re: #112 Killian Bundy

Not sure, but it's better than heading the way of the European right...

re: #149 ConservativeAtheist

And an even better answer, "Well, Chris, evolution is an observable fact. I assume you meant to ask me about the theory of natural selection as posited by Darwin to explain speciation." and watch Matthews stutter in response like the dolt he is.

We would all be stupefied.

re: #132 HoosierHoops

Shouldn't we accept that most politicians are going to be pretty clueless when it comes to science, any science? Should we start asking them their opinions on string theory?

re: #82 stuiec

I would posit that "Creationist" did not become an epithet until after dozens of cases of Creationists trying to enforce that belief on others through a well-funded legal offensive with an armada of misleading propaganda...such as the "Intelligent Design" Trojan horse.

What am I missing?

re: #125 jaunte

How so?

Hmm. I know I'm being baited... but what the hell.

Painting with a very broad brush; one is a theory of assumptions and logic regarding all life-forms on Earth evolving from absolutely nothing in a 'primordial soup' of whatever chemicals, into all forms and species of life we have today.

The other covers the adaptations of pre-existing life-forms to their ever changing environments.

Basically.

re: #151 shug

It's so disappointing when I see a conservative who is so appealing only to discover they are a creationist. Like marrying the perfect woman and on your honeymoon you discover she has a penis. Totally spoils the mood

The till death do you part doesn't help either..Esp. if you get Married in Mass.. Then all bets are off

Evolution is not a religion, therefore accepting it isn't a religious test.

The government cannot have a religious test in order for an elected official to take office, but that doesn't mean the people individually won't. As an example- how many atheists have we elected to the presidency?

re: #145 Occasional Reader

/snickering like Muttley

re: #151 shug

It's so disappointing when I see a conservative who is so appealing only to discover they are a creationist. Like marrying the perfect woman and on your honeymoon you discover she has a penis. Totally spoils the mood

Are you commenting from experience?
;P

re: #148 jaunte

Pence had to tapdance because powerful voting blocs in his party are ignorant about what the theory of evolution actually is, (after imbibing oceans of misinformation) and are intolerant of politicians holding beliefs that they feel may call their own into question.

The saddest note of all is all the crazed tap dancing when if you survey even just the hardcore base of the Republican party rank and file this particular issue probably doesn't break the top ten in their issues list. Its' the think tanks and big money that keeps it at the forefront, not the real will of the Republican electorate.

re: #128 funky chicken

That's what McCain and Romney said.

Well, we need to push to make it more common.

Respect for faith.
Acceptance of Science.

re: #156 ShanghaiEd

I'm glad you got registered here, newbie. Welcome!

I think Pence could have saved some aggravation by discounting Matthews' assertions related to creationism as low priorities. We have bigger fish to fry. Further, allowing Chrissy to paint conservatives as idiots was embarrassing - for Pence.

re: #106 Occasional Reader

Um... that's not a "myth". There isn't one. Unless you postulate the silly-ass Antonio Negri definition of "empire".

(If there is one, by the way, I'd like to know why we're continually sending OUT money in the form of foreign aid, instead of taking IN our imperial tribute.)

The foreign aid we send out is a fraction of a fraction of what we take in from sending American jobs overseas, to name just one source.

The American empire is a simple reality. You can make the case that it's more benign than other empires, but that does nothing to alter the fact.

We Romans knew a thing or two about running an empire, and Americans have been our best students. We constantly sent subsidies to keep the ruling kings, tyrants and oligarchs happy in our territories. So does America. People complain that foreign aid so often ends up in the hands of kleptocrats and corrupt colonels instead of helping the people "for whom it was intended". Are you honestly naive enough to think that's an accident? The money goes precisely where it's supposed to.

re: #53 Occasional Reader

You've just crossed over into simple bigotry with that comment.

(And this is an atheist saying this to you, by the way.)

Fair enough. I was halfway joking there. How about these three questions for obtaining a driver's license? (A "NO" answer automatically disqualifies you)

1: Did the USA successfully land on the Moon in 1969?
2: Did Oswald kill Kennedy?
3: Did 19 crazed Muslim fanatics carry out the attacks on 9-11?

re: #147 Charles

I'm glad Pence did this interview, because he inadvertently revealed the sheer pervasiveness of the GOP's problem with anti-scientific views.

He gave a bad response to a loaded question. He handled it poorly.

It means far far less than what you'd personally try to lead others to believe it actually was.

re: #169 Blue_Knight

He gave a bad response to a loaded question. He handled it poorly.

It means far far less than what you'd personally try to lead others to believe it actually was.

Google "Mike Pence Creationist" in about 3 days.

re: #133 hiddenlizard

I certainly do!

Care to share an opinion, then? Frog's post seemed pretty damned reasonable to me.

re: #157 Blue_Knight

Hmm. I know I'm being baited... but what the hell.

Painting with a very broad brush; one is a theory of assumptions and logic regarding all life-forms on Earth evolving from absolutely nothing in a 'primordial soup' of whatever chemicals, into all forms and species of life we have today.

The other covers the adaptations of pre-existing life-forms to their ever changing environments.

Basically.

This is where the problem lies, I think.
this article has a good discussion about the definition scientist use when discussing evolution:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

re: #168 mfarmer1

Fair enough. I was halfway joking there. How about these three questions for obtaining a driver's license? (A "NO" answer automatically disqualifies you)

1: Did the USA successfully land on the Moon in 1969?
2: Did Oswald kill Kennedy?
3: Did 19 crazed Muslim fanatics carry out the attacks on 9-11?

There's gonna be a lot of otherwise sane people failing on #2 alone.

/grassy knolls aside

re: #113 Charles

Creationism does not equal religion. And evolution does not equal atheism. Only the most fanatical fundamentalists believe those two premises to be true.

I think lots of people equate evolution and atheism. I'd wager a bet that lie is behind most of this controversy. And its the Young Earth Creationists spreading the lie.

re: #170 Bloodnok

Google "Mike Pence Creationist" in about 3 days.

It would actually mean something if I could do that today.

re: #171 Slumbering Behemoth

I did reply. number 124 I think. Just look around.

re: #169 Blue_Knight

He gave a bad response to a loaded question. He handled it poorly.

It means far far less than what you'd personally try to lead others to believe it actually was.

So, are you a creationist?

re: #167 Cato the Elder

The foreign aid we send out is a fraction of a fraction of what we take in from sending American jobs overseas, to name just one source.

Um... we run an empire by sending our jobs overseas?!

Okey doke.

re: #129 hiddenlizard

re: #171 Slumbering Behemoth

Shit, my bad, you already did. I mistook you for one of those quite downdingers, sorry.

re: #174 Mich-again

I think lots of people equate evolution and atheism. I'd wager a bet that lie is behind most of this controversy. And its the Young Earth Creationists spreading the lie.

That's the lie the discovery institute has been spending years promoting. It's part of the Wedge.

re: #175 Blue_Knight

It would actually mean something if I could do that today.

Try it, then. 37,700 results found.

re: #174 Mich-again

I think lots of people equate evolution and atheism. I'd wager a bet that lie is behind most of this controversy. And its the Young Earth Creationists spreading the lie.

Yes, they also throw in imaginary belief systems such as "materialism" and "scientism".

re: #180 Occasional Reader

And apparently by running a huge trade deficit too.

re: #167 Cato the Elder

Are you honestly naive enough to think that's an accident?

There's a distinct possibility here that I may know a little more about US foreign aid than you do.

Anyway, I'll have to hear more of your musings about imperial outsourcing tomorrow.

Good night to all.

This has become an Achilles' Heel for Republicans., and their enemies know it.

Democrats (and their cheerleaders like Mathews) know that all they have to do is ask a Republican candidate if they accept evolution and the Democrat knows that if the Republican says, "Yes," they risk the wrath of fundamentalists, and if they say "No," they risk the wrath of the rational voters. Either way, the Republican loses. This is what Republicans get for hitching their wagons to the fundamentalists' all these years.

Republicans are now paying the price.

I just hope the Libertarian Party can purge itself of the loons in it, so that they can start to take on the Democrats and restore some liberty, fiscal responsibility and respect for science in this nation. Because it's obvious the Republicans are no longer doing it.

re: #179 Charles

So, are you a creationist?

To be honest. I don't know with absolute certainty. Yet.

November 10, 2010. I'm staying home.

re: #189 Gus 802

November 10 2, 2010. I'm staying home.

Er, 2nd.

'mike pence' creationism.

30,000 results.

It's crap like this that makes it so hard to get young voters into the party, especially in the non-southern regions of the country

re: #175 Blue_Knight

It would actually mean something if I could do that today.

Guess what? You can:

[Link: www.google.com...]

re: #187 Steve Rogers

I just hope the Libertarian Party can purge itself of the loons in it, so that they can start to take on the Democrats and restore some liberty, fiscal responsibility and respect for science in this nation.

/good luck with that

re: #191 Charles

'mike pence' creationism.

30,000 results.

Ouch, hard to ignore that.

re: #190 Gus 802

Er, 2nd.

No No! stay home the 10th..vote the 2nd..

re: #183 Bloodnok

Try it, then. 37,700 results found.

Me thinks you're trying to lay down some shenanigans. Or, you need to refine your search parameters.

No results found for "Mike Pence Creationist".

...

re: #184 Killgore Trout

Yes, they also throw in imaginary belief systems such as "materialism" and "scientism".

And it doesn't help matters that most people treat politics like sports. They root for their team and boo the other team like its a big game.

re: #191 Charles

'mike pence' creationism.

30,000 results.

LGF is #9, by the way.

Googlebot works fast. (And I've now figured out what was causing us not to place very highly there.)

re: #129 hiddenlizard

Then why don't they? What about the history of all religions' war against science?

Creationism is just a symptom, the cause is Americans holding onto religion because they think it is the source of morality. They hold altruism as the only valid code of morality, and therefore accept all the other nonsense attached to religion. That is why they also can't support capitalism because it is a selfish, this-worldly system.

I agree 100 percent, except your last sentence. I've never met a staunch Creationist who was not also fine with capitalism. Have you?

re: #198 Blue_Knight

Me thinks you're trying to lay down some shenanigans. Or, you need to refine your search parameters.

No results found for "Mike Pence Creationist".

...

Remove the quotation marks.

re: #198 Blue_Knight

Didn't try the "results without quotes" did you?

re: #196 taxfreekiller

I'm new here so I apologize in advance if you talk in some secret code...but...

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with creationism?

re: #187 Steve Rogers

The Libertarian Party was loon-started, lead, and run, and its ideas are the looniest of all. The LP makes capitalism look worse than the GOP. Oh, and I forgot the obvious fact that third parties are worthless; our country works so that only two parties can realistically exist.

That is why we need to make the GOP better by encouraging them to drop religion and accept capitalism on a new secular code of morality.

Hmmm... "Chris Matthews creationism" 162,000 hits.

re: #198 Blue_Knight

Me thinks you're trying to lay down some shenanigans. Or, you need to refine your search parameters.

No results found for "Mike Pence Creationist".

...

Uh ... when you put quotes around the phrase, Google looks for the exact phrase "Mike Pence Creationism."

re: #199 Mich-again

And it doesn't help matters that most people treat politics like sports. They root for their team and boo the other team like its a big game.

Intellectual honesty is out of style, it seems.

I really dig the flurry of GIS results... all of them relating to the topic of this thread so far as I can tell.

Bad news (or good news depending what side of the fence you're on) gets out fast on the interwebs.

re: #129 hiddenlizard

Then why don't they? What about the history of all religions' war against science?

Creationism is just a symptom, the cause is Americans holding onto religion because they think it is the source of morality. They hold altruism as the only valid code of morality, and therefore accept all the other nonsense attached to religion. That is why they also can't support capitalism because it is a selfish, this-worldly system.

That's refreshing. I haven't heard that argument -- that religion is the root of evil in the world -- before. At least, not with the twist that self-interest is superior to altruism.

/sarc

re: #204 erraticsphinx

tfk's style is a bit more eclectic than most lizards.

The search I posted looks like this:

+"mike pence" +creationism

That searches for the exact phrase "mike pence", when it also includes the word "creationism."

30,000 genuine results.

re: #168 mfarmer1

Fair enough. I was halfway joking there. How about these three questions for obtaining a driver's license? (A "NO" answer automatically disqualifies you)

1: Did the USA successfully land on the Moon in 1969?
2: Did Oswald kill Kennedy?
3: Did 19 crazed Muslim fanatics carry out the attacks on 9-11?

Actually, the USA successfully landed on the moon in 1966. People didn't come along until 1969.

re: #197 HoosierHoops

No No! stay home the 10th..vote the 2nd..

Why? I'm back in that phase again. You know in 6 months we're going to back into campaign season for the Senate. One year later the presidential campaign is going to start. It will be the same thing all over again.

re: #198 Blue_Knight

Me thinks you're trying to lay down some shenanigans. Or, you need to refine your search parameters.

No results found for "Mike Pence Creationist".

...

Even with the quotation marks skewing the search results, now can this be a No Result?

Flat earther creationist Rep. Mike Pence can't admit he doesn't believe in evolution

That is the FIRST link from YOUR search results.

re: #209 Sharmuta

Intellectual honesty is out of style, it seems.

/what, did you sleep through the last election hope and change revival metting?

re: #204 erraticsphinx

Taxfreekiller's manner of communication is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, that originates from an enigma . Like that.

re: #212 Sharmuta

tfk's style is a bit more eclectic than most lizards.

tfk does posts in high operatic prose poetry.

re: #204 erraticsphinx

hahahaha
it's ok newbe,
it can take awhile to "get" TFK
just rest assured, there is much wisdom in his posts

re: #188 Blue_Knight

To be honest. I don't know with absolute certainty. Yet.

I'm an evangelical Christian.

I believe God created the universe.

I am not a creationist.

I have a B.S. in Bio-Chem, the science for evolution is frankly overwhelming, and every thing I learned in all the classes I took only increased my wonder and awe at God's creation. Because not only do I believe in the Creator, I believe what His Creation tells us.

There are two realms, one of spirituality and of the physical. Science recognizes that it cannot answer questions of the spiritual. The Bible also recognizes the separation, the tree of life (spiritual) and the tree of knowledge (includes science).

There does not have to be a conflict, it's a manufactured conflict based on much that just isn't so.

re: #205 hiddenlizard

That is why we need to make the GOP better by encouraging them to drop religion and accept capitalism on a new secular code of morality.

True. Invite them to read the Constitution for the first time.

re: #215 Opilio

Actually, the USA successfully landed on the moon in 1966. People didn't come along until 1969.

Surveyor 3!

Apollo 12! (LM landed nearby)

Pete Conrad rules!

re: #204 erraticsphinx

I'm new here so I apologize in advance if you talk in some secret code...but...

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with creationism?

TFK is the "banner" that scrolls in the background on most threads. You may not always understand him, but he's entertaining and you'd miss the added feature if he was not here. :)

re: #201 ShanghaiEd

I agree 100 percent, except your last sentence. I've never met a staunch Creationist who was not also fine with capitalism. Have you?

I am fortunate enough to live in CA and I have never had a convo with a real, hard-core creationist. It doesn't matter because altruism and capitalism do not mix, which we can determine by using logic. Altruism taken seriously leads to collectivism/dictatorship, and capitalism is based on man living selfishly for his own benefit.

It doesn't matter if religious people claim to love capitalism, by their premises they will eventually move toward statism/theocracy in which prayer is forced in schools, abortion is outlawed, and social welfare programs are kept in place to help the meek (cough, Reagan, cough).

re: #180 Occasional Reader

Um... we run an empire by sending our jobs overseas?!

Okey doke.

No.

We run an empire, among other things, by massive military presence around the world.

Air Force.

Army.

Marines.

Navy.

Note that I said not a word about whether said empire is good or bad. But to deny its existence is as delusional as to dispute the force of gravity.

And if you want to know a few surprising things about American imperialism, ask a Filipino.

re: #188 Blue_Knight

To be honest. I don't know with absolute certainty. Yet.

When do you think you'll "know with absolute certainty?"

OT: I just went out to the pond and my fish are "doing it". I haven't had baby goldfish the past few year because of water quality issues. Good to know nature is taking its course.

re: #216 Gus 802

Why? I'm back in that phase again. You know in 6 months we're going to back into campaign season for the Senate. One year later the presidential campaign is going to start. It will be the same thing all over again.

Chin up..Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
The fight is never over..You never give up..It's a Democracy..We just have to bring more people to the fight...

re: #200 Charles

LGF is #9, by the way.

Googlebot works fast. (And I've now figured out what was causing us not to place very highly there.)

Goggle's Super Hidden Double Secret Hamster Probation?

re: #195 FurryOldGuyJeans

Ouch, hard to ignore that.

To be fair a lot of those hits are finding "mike pence" + creation, and relate to a job creation bill, however the top few pages are filled already with this.

re: #231 HoosierHoops

Chin up..Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
The fight is never over..You never give up..It's a Democracy..We just have to bring more people to the fight...

Nippon not Germany. ;)

I know what you mean.

re: #165 Sharmuta

Thanks, Sharmuta. The water certainly feels fine.

re: #227 Cato the Elder

And if you want to know a few surprising things about American imperialism, ask a Filipino.

/HURRRGGGHMMMHMMM.

// C:

re: #219 MrPaulRevere

Taxfreekiller's manner of communication is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, that originates from an enigma . Like that.

You forgot the chewy conundrum in the center.

one thing we can be sure of, if the GOP drops and connection to creationism or ID then the abortion stance will go with it.

re: #229 Killgore Trout

OT: I just went out to the pond and my fish are "doing it". I haven't had baby goldfish the past few year because of water quality issues. Good to know nature is taking its course.

Well, you do know why W. C. Fields said he never drank water, right?

Wine and burgers time lizardz. BBL

re: #174 Mich-again

I think lots of people equate evolution and atheism. I'd wager a bet that lie is behind most of this controversy. And its the Young Earth Creationists spreading the lie.

Evolution doesn't deny the existence of God, but it does challenge orthodoxies. Most Christians believe God can perform miracles; one of these miracles is the special creation of man and woman, a creation that was unlike the creation of plants and animals. Evolution tells us man and woman were created by the same means every other organism was created, an entirely mechanistic process. So Christians have to modify orthodoxies they've accepted as reality, or they have to deny evolution. Denying evolution is easier and less stressful.

re: #235 Gus 802

Nippon not Germany. ;)

I know what you mean.

No, he was right. :)

re: #233 taxfreekiller

Ok, that clears up everything.

/

re: #229 Killgore Trout

OT: I just went out to the pond and my fish are "doing it". I haven't had baby goldfish the past few year because of water quality issues. Good to know nature is taking its course.

That why I avoid water, fish fornicate in it.

(W.C. Fields quote I think)

I was just reading that Jindals on the new Republican rebranding panel... lovely.

re: #219 MrPaulRevere

How's my TFK-Fu?

Al gore
no time to lose
CO2 stealth attack will crush your little bible

re: #239 salm141

one thing we can be sure of, if the GOP drops and connection to creationism or ID then the abortion stance will go with it.

Absolutely true. They are all logically connected, and they all have to go. If that ever happens, it would be result of an intellectual revolution.

So I've been locked in my laboratory for the last two weeks with nary a moment to even think about things outside of science only to see this when I emerge. Thanks GOP leadership! We hardworking scientists love, just really love seeing this garbage.

I mean really, who does this leave me to vote for?

Do I really want to vote for a party that is slipping further and further into utter ludditism, conspiracy lunacy and Paulianism? Do I want the fiscally irresponsible party that can not possibly see their own abandonment of their own principles?

Do I want to vote for the crazy surrender monkeys who feel that if we kiss up to bad guys, they will love us?

Wait, the GOP sucks up to the Saudis too and it has our friends the Syrians help with our "interrogations."

Actually, the surrender monkeys seem to do that too...

In the mean time, the Pakis might be about to loose their nukes to the Taliban. Iran is building a nuke. We certainly did not include enough outbreak infrastructure in our bailouts (even thought the medical community has been screaming about it for over a decade), the economy is crazy and oh yes, the most important things to discuss on the one side is why Darwin was wrong and why sex is bad, whilst on the other, we here that the most important things are making fun of the GOP and ignoring the aforesaid mentioned problems by the hopes of singing a kumbayah.

Yes, I have emerged a little bitter with this crie de coeur.

And then there is AGW. On the ones side we see political opportunists who want to scream that the world is ending tomorrow, use this to hijack the science, and do all sorts of things that fit their agenda, but will not help in the long run.

On the other side, we have those who are so wrapped up in what the hippies might do with the science that they figure the best answer is to deny the science... because it fits their agenda.

The scientific community feels like a kid on a boat who sees a hole in the bottom. We report the hole and suggest that we should plug it. One set of people on the boat starts screaming and acting crazy and suggests that we start throwing everything overboard. We say we don't need to do that, let's just plug the hole. We are ignored. They really want to throw things overboard.

The other set says "what hole?" We point to the hole. We point to the few millimeters of water we are already standing in. We explain that more water will come in, we just don't know how much how fast, but for sure it is coming and if it gets to a certain point, the boat will sink. We are told that we are hippies and delusional and once again asked to show evidence of a hole. Someone has a new blog post that shows that it is not a hole rather a dark wet spot. It needs further study they say. We are ignored. They really want to throw the hippies overboard.

In the mean time as with so many other issues the problem grows rather than shrinks and our leadership sits with it's thumb in its bottom. Ou leadership on both worthless sides.

But that's ok, there is always the Paulians or Buchannan and other not so closet nazis to consider.

I am really getting tired of this.

re: #244 ConservativeAtheist

No, he was right. :)

The Germans?! =)

//

re: #143 Killgore Trout

Once again; the two are not mutually exclusive. One can believe in god and accept basic scientific concepts such as evolution, Newtonian physics and the Copernican model of the solar system. Many Muslims have difficulty reconciling science with religion which is why they have a backwards and unenlightened culture. People who can not reconcile their faith with the reality we live in are not going to make good leaders.

Which tribunal would Mike Pence have to appear before in order to satisfactorily recant his Creationist beliefs?

How should we deal with the ignorant and dangerous people who, despite the gentle ministrations of the rational folks around them, refuse to give up their belief in the literal interpretation of their Scriptures?

re: #242 KingKenrod

There would also be the "Dr. Manhattan" rationale...that every single person being unique, even siblings among twins/triplets is a little miracle in itself.

/but what would I know, I'm atheist too. >_>

re: #248 Jimmah

Not bad, but there is always room for improvement.

re: #234 Thanos

To be fair a lot of those hits are finding "mike pence" + creation, and relate to a job creation bill, however the top few pages are filled already with this.

Hard to ignore that there are pages already filled. No matter how you slice it, this is interweb talk.

re: #242 KingKenrod

So Christians have to modify orthodoxies they've accepted as reality, or they have to deny evolution.

That's not true. The vast majority of Christians in the world have no trouble accepting evolution. The Pope accepts evolution.

Fundamentalist Christians deny evolution, and that's not at all the same thing.

re: #229 Killgore Trout

OT: I just went out to the pond and my fish are "doing it". I haven't had baby goldfish the past few year because of water quality issues. Good to know nature is taking its course.

"water...never touch the stuff...fish fuck in it"

/W.C. Fields

re: #231 HoosierHoops

When did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor?

re: #54 avanti

Also from Palin:

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate she said, “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

However, she clarified her position the day after the debate:

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to.

This is from the Anchorage Daily News article published October 27, 2006, and last modified October 30, 2006 at 09:40 AM.

re: #252 stuiec

With all due respect, that's a huge-ass strawman argument.

OT: wow- it must be pretty bad when you need to turn to a stalker blog to raise money for yourself, huh robert?

re: #231 HoosierHoops

Chin up..Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
The fight is never over..You never give up..It's a Democracy..We just have to bring more people to the fight...

Upding for the Blutarsky reference.

re: #252 stuiec

Which tribunal would Mike Pence have to appear before in order to satisfactorily recant his Creationist beliefs?

How should we deal with the ignorant and dangerous people who, despite the gentle ministrations of the rational folks around them, refuse to give up their belief in the literal interpretation of their Scriptures?

Get a grip.

re: #245 erraticsphinx

Ok, that clears up everything.

/