If your not a creationist, would you ever vote for one?

[skeptical]

Since the Huckster is the only of the "3 monkeys" still in the race, this thought was on my mind a bit.

And for clarity, I am talking about either YEC's or OEC's, not someone who believes in "theistic evolution", but someone who thinks the facts of science must be bent to fit their religious text. The kind of person who would raise their hand on national tv to the question "who here doesn't believe in evolution".

So my answer is "absolutely not". Being anti-science is on my short list of show stoppers.

Interested what others think.

[fuelair]

No - if they are that ignorant, incompetant or fraudulant I could not possibly vote for them.

[Piggy]

No.

Boy, that was easy.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

If they reject honest science, that would cause me to question their ability to reason and think logically which is required a great deal in the job description. So, to put it simply, I really can't say I would.

[Lex Luthor]

No, I would never vote for a creationist, for all of the same reasons that have already been given.

Huckabee is especially scary, given that he wants to amend the Constitution and put "God" in it, (whatever that means), and because he thinks he can abolish the IRS by instituting a national sales tax.

[Just thinking]

Actually, I don't give that being much of a reason. It's how they would govern (by what they say and what they may have already done) that will help me decide. I certainly wouldn't vote for a Darwinist/Evolutionist who had no religious ties at all, but yet thought of a big-brother cradle-to-grave socialist government as being the best way to run things. If he/she could keep separate their religious persona from their political one, it wouldn't bother me in the least.

[Achán hiNidráne]

No. In an increasingly technical and science-based society, I really don't relish the thought of giving decision-making power to someone who thinks that, despite all evidence, the world began 6000 years ago and was created in six calender days.

I also don't think it's a good idea to give the power to start wars to someone who believes that the world will END in bloodshed and destruction and that ending is something we should be waiting for.

The scary thing is, most Creationists and Millennialists tend to be the same people.

[quixotecoyote]

More than likely I would and will. I haven't heard Obama or Clinton specify the details of their religious belief, but I wouldn't be surprised if they thought some aspect of the universe was magiced into existence.

[portlandatheist]

It's very difficult for me to imagine voting for a creationists but it is at least conceivable and I wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand, they would have to be just about perfect in every other regard but having saying that, I can't imagine any creationist being an "overall good package" from my point of view. I have no problem voting for theists or people that hold opposite views of me on abortion or other important issues if the overall package is good, or "less evil" than the opposition. My view of politics is more pragmatic and less idealistic. This question is unfair without the context of the creationist's opposition. I would vote for Huckabee(whom I loathe) if his opponent was Pol Pot for example.

[m_huber]

Would I vote creationist for president? Probably not. But I can imagine a creationist doing a good job within some branch of the government. I wouldn't want a creationist to have any job that would impact scientific inquiry. A president who doesn't know the basics of biology would not be likely to increase scientific funding. And our current fundie president has cut scientific funding quite a bit (much to the dismay of NASA).

[El Greco]

Not if there was any chance they would go in Education or Culture Ministries. Otherwise it's possible, if I thought they were honest. Honesty is much harder to find and, IMO, more important than intelligence when it comes to politics. Much more so in my country where corruption is pretty much uncontrollable.

[Nogbad]

It depends what one means by creationist. If it is somebody who believes that there is a divine hand behind the mechanics of the universe then I can't see it being a big issue. If it were some loon who thinks the universe is 6,000 years old and thinks these are the "end times" then absolutely not.

[RandomJSF]

Herein lies one of the questions that has been raised several times during this current campaign.

The issue, for many people, is the "No Religious Test" Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause). Some believe that, as the Constitution prohibits government discrimination on religious grounds (for qualification of public office), that we as the people should not make our decisions with any attention paid towards a candidate's religious affiliation.

Regardless of whether you believe that or not (Christopher Hitchens has written an excellent article on this very subject (http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/) over at Slate (http://www.slate.com)), this conundrum can be addressed very quickly and very simply.

Whether or not I would vote for a Creationist is not a question of religious test. It is a question of a scientific test. As others here have stated, evolution is not a religion, but rather a science (as even the oft-vaunted Karl Popper eventually came to understand, for those here that remember the thread where that was argued EXCESSIVELY). To deny such widely-accepted science is an extremely, EXTREMELY black mark on a candidates campaign. At least, it is for me.

I would be left to wonder how that candidate would react to not any debates over Intelligent Design and Evolution (and their place in the laws of the land and in US policy), but their stance on other important issues, some with enormously far-reaching implications (such as stem-cell research, the most visible example).

So, in summary... No. In good conscience, I could not support a Creationist's bid for public office unless their only competition was even more vehemently Creationist than they.

~~ RandomJSF

[UnrepentantSinner]

It depends what one means by creationist. If it is somebody who believes that there is a divine hand behind the mechanics of the universe then I can't see it being a big issue. If it were some loon who thinks the universe is 6,000 years old and thinks these are the "end times" then absolutely not.

Nogbad sums up my stance pefectly.

[Just thinking]

Would I vote creationist for president? Probably not. But I can imagine a creationist doing a good job within some branch of the government. I wouldn't want a creationist to have any job that would impact scientific inquiry. A president who doesn't know the basics of biology would not be likely to increase scientific funding. And our current fundie president has cut scientific funding quite a bit (much to the dismay of NASA).

Obama doesn't give me a warm-fuzzy feeling about space exploration (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php) either.

[fishbob]

Not only no but Hell No.

[Wowbagger]

We might not have much of a choice. Has there ever been a serious contender for President, that has declared that they think Creation myths are just that? And, that Natural Selection is powerful enough to explain the origins of and the wide variety of life we see?

Though, if one ever did, they would almost certainly get my vote.

[Darth Rotor]

If they reject honest science, that would cause me to question their ability to reason and think logically which is required a great deal in the job description. So, to put it simply, I really can't say I would.
FWIW, this same argument was made about Obama and smoking a few months ago on this forum. :p Doubts about his ratiounal thinking vis a vis smoking were posited as some kind of shortcoming.

Bah. A man without any vices, or any apparent vices, is a rare man indeed. Warning flags go up.

To answer the OP: a no foolin' YEC? No.

DR

[Lanzy]

If it is even close to a central theme of their campaign? NEVER!
While its true no declared atheist has a chance for being elected president, I suspect quite a few pray, go to church and "believe" as more of a respect to their contingents, than to their true natures. They are after all politicians, and you can barely believe half of what they say anyway.
But if they go out of their way even a little bit to deny science, evolution, etc. I'd rather stay home than support any of them.

[Upchurch]

...but I wouldn't be surprised if they thought some aspect of the universe was magiced into existence.

I would be, but somehow that always takes me by surprise.

eta: To answer the OP, it'd be hard for me to vote for a strict creationist. I might consider it if they stressed that they could maintain a hard break between their religious beliefs and their duties in which ever elected position they were running for.

To my knowledge, that has never happened yet.

[Lurker]

I would vote for one as long as they gave no hint that they intended on forcing their view into any sort of legislation. If they hinted that creationism should be taught in school, then no. If they said nothing about it, then I would look to other issues for reasons to vote for or against them.

Of course, I am biased in that I am a bliever in a sort of theistic evolution anyway. :)

[m_huber]

Obama doesn't give me a warm-fuzzy feeling about space exploration (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php) either.

Actually, space exploration is what Bush has pushed that has been the bane of NASA for the last few years. NASA has a tight budget, and when they are forced to use it all to push space exploration, it cuts into their ability to fund private research or to do the research projects that they usually do. While going to the Moon has some scientific value, there is absolutely no reason why we need people to go there to get the scientific information we need. Robots can do the dirty work at a much reduced cost and much lower risk. NASA gets mocked when they lose a trillion dollar satellite, but they get grounded when a freak accident kills seven people. The Bush administration has tried to establish itself as a legacy by saying that we will put a man on Mars, but there is no incentive to do so. In the 60's, it made sense to go to the Moon. Now, it makes sense to use NASA's limited funding to do unmanned exploration and research in space. Bush wasn't looking to improve science, he was looking to improve his own public standing. That is the problem with a fundie president.

On another note, while I find this an interesting topic, would one of the mods please change the syntax of the title to "you're"?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I vote for the candidate most likely to provide me with amusement. People who believe the world is 6,000 years old already have earned a chuckle, so they have a head start.

[ksbluesfan]

If the candidate the rejected evolution was the least horrible of the options, possibly. Given other decent options, not a chance.

[Father Dagon]

No. Deniers of commie, fascist and nazi atrocities is also out of the question.

[Dr Adequate]

Obama doesn't give me a warm-fuzzy feeling about space exploration (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php) either. You mean the bit about not spending $100,000,000,000 on going to Mars?

There's no pleasing some people.

Oh, and ...

"Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." --- Barack Obama (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.as p)

[Piggy]

We might not have much of a choice. Has there ever been a serious contender for President, that has declared that they think Creation myths are just that? And, that Natural Selection is powerful enough to explain the origins of and the wide variety of life we see?

Though, if one ever did, they would almost certainly get my vote.

So you're a Giuliani man, eh?

[skeptical]

On another note, while I find this an interesting topic, would one of the mods please change the syntax of the title to "you're"?

Argggh! Now that is embarrassing. Sorry about that.

[skeptical]

I would be, but somehow that always takes me by surprise.

eta: To answer the OP, it'd be hard for me to vote for a strict creationist. I might consider it if they stressed that they could maintain a hard break between their religious beliefs and their duties in which ever elected position they were running for.

To my knowledge, that has never happened yet.

Would you honestly trust someone who rejects all modern earth and life science to maintain a "hard break" between their religious beliefs and their duties? I wouldn't. They would have already shown in spades that evidence based reality is irrelevant if it conflicts with their holy book.

[skeptical]

I would vote for one as long as they gave no hint that they intended on forcing their view into any sort of legislation. If they hinted that creationism should be taught in school, then no. If they said nothing about it, then I would look to other issues for reasons to vote for or against them.

Of course, I am biased in that I am a bliever in a sort of theistic evolution anyway. :)

Are you aware of any YEC/OEC that _doesn't_ want creationism of one flavor or another taught in school? I mean, if someone genuinely believes that nonsense, I can't see how they could ever accept evolutionary theory being taught without putting up a fuss.

Also, its not just legislation, there are for more subtle ways. Funding is one. The executive branch has enormous discretion in how it allocates funds within departments, it is very easy to move funds away from groups that you don't agree with, and chill research papers that don't follow your agenda. It is also easy to promote creationism in non-legislative ways, by, for example, allowing creationist geology books to be sold at the Grand Canyon visitors bookstore (yes, this is already happening and it is appalling).

[JumpinVal]

I'm just as likely to vote for someone who denies evolution as I am to vote for someone who denies the Earth is round.

[thaiboxerken]

Only if the other candidate was retarded, and then it would be a difficult decision.

[Tricky]

I am not a one-issue voter. If the creationist were closer to my positions in all other issues than all other candidates, then I would vote for him or her. In real life, this situation never arises.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I am not a one-issue voter. If the creationist were closer to my positions in all other issues than all other candidates, then I would vote for him or her. In real life, this situation never arises.

That's something a lot of religious "values" voters admit about atheist candidates. It would be interesting to see a socially conservative atheist run against a socially liberal believer and find out if the results would match the polls.

[Tricky]

That's something a lot of religious "values" voters admit about atheist candidates. It would be interesting to see a socially conservative atheist run against a socially liberal believer and find out if the results would match the polls.
Atheist candidates? Where did you find these creatures? Camping next to Bigfoot?;)

[Andronicus]

Fromhttp://presidentialpolitic.blogspot.com/2007/05/huckabees-evolution-beliefs.html

"If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, that's fine. I'll accept that," he said Friday. "I just don't happen to think that I did."

As for what should be taught in public schools, Huckabee said he wants "schools to acknowledge that there are views that are different than evolution."

Huckabee downplayed the role evolution should have in the election. "Is a president going to sit in the Oval Office and really make a decision on what's being taught in a third-grade class in Dubuque, Iowa, on creation or evolution?" he said. "The answer is no."

[Jonnyclueless]

I would prefer not vote for a creationist, but that belief of theirs would not be a sole determining factor.

[J Coplen]

No.

[proxywar]

odd question, seeing how, just about every president has been religious.

As long as they follow the constitution and don't try to implament any wacky bible/God laws I don't have a problem voting for them.

And this is coming from an agnostic.

My real thought is, none of them actually believe in God, they just go through the motions to please the people who do. Politics.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Atheist candidates? Where did you find these creatures? Camping next to Bigfoot?;)

Good point, only slightly less salient than had you asked where we would find a socially conserative atheist. ;)

My real thought is, none of them actually believe in God, they just go through the motions to please the people who do. Politics.

Really? Where did you get that thought? Dubyah made a pandering intellectual faux pas when, instead of admitting he didn't have a favorite political philosopher, he said it was "Christ" (come on Mr. President, is it that hard to have learned anything about John Locke?), but are you seriously suggesting that "Pastor" Mike Huckabee and Mitt "Magic Underwear" Romney don't believe their religious convictions and are just playing to the public?

Are you an American, because I don't believe anyone that lives in this country would actually assert, believe or even think that?

[Nogbad]

odd question, seeing how, just about every president has been religious.

As long as they follow the constitution and don't try to implament any wacky bible/God laws I don't have a problem voting for them.

And this is coming from an agnostic.

My real thought is, none of them actually believe in God, they just go through the motions to please the people who do. Politics.

Carter was religious and I dare say there have been others but do not most simply pay lip service because it is political convenient to do so?

[Cainkane1]

I wouldn't vote for Huck if I liked him and I don't. His Presidency would be an absoulte disaster.

[technoextreme]

odd question, seeing how, just about every president has been religious.

On top of that there have been enough presidents that have believed in loonier things than creationism that the History Channel made a television special about it.

[m_huber]

I wouldn't vote for Huck if I liked him and I don't. His Presidency would be an absoulte disaster.

I think Huckabee is the most "human" of the republican candidates. I kind of like him, and I hope that he does well in life. I am also glad that he is making McCain work for the nomination. However, I don't want to see him become president. His policy ideas are pretty lame.

(My cousin works for the Huckabee campaign in Arkansas)

[Piggy]

I think Huckabee is the most "human" of the republican candidates.

Well, since to err is human, I reckon you have a point.

[bokonon]

Actually, space exploration is what Bush has pushed that has been the bane of NASA for the last few years. NASA has a tight budget, and when they are forced to use it all to push space exploration, it cuts into their ability to fund private research or to do the research projects that they usually do. While going to the Moon has some scientific value, there is absolutely no reason why we need people to go there to get the scientific information we need. Robots can do the dirty work at a much reduced cost and much lower risk. NASA gets mocked when they lose a trillion dollar satellite, but they get grounded when a freak accident kills seven people. The Bush administration has tried to establish itself as a legacy by saying that we will put a man on Mars, but there is no incentive to do so. In the 60's, it made sense to go to the Moon. Now, it makes sense to use NASA's limited funding to do unmanned exploration and research in space. Bush wasn't looking to improve science, he was looking to improve his own public standing. That is the problem with a fundie president.
You've nailed it. Bush is simply trying to link his Alfred E. Neuman image with space exploration because he thinks the sound bite will work for his legacy the same way it worked for Kennedy. He doesn't want to be remembered as the worst thing to happen to civil liberties since Jefferson, but unless the real Big Brother comes along, I think that's how history will remember him. That, and his general anti-science agenda, and overarching simplemindedness.

There is no reason to send men to Mars, and my blood pressure rises a bit every time I hear someone seriously advocating it. I hope that whoever succeeds Bush has sense enough to get space exploration back on a more rational track -- unmanned missions to the planets, bigger and better orbiting telescopes, manned missions in earth orbit, POSSIBLY (if there is good justification) manned missions to the moon.

As to the subject of the thread, it has been easy for me to dismiss Huckabee because of his creationist position, because the rest of his positions don't override that judgment. While belief in creationism does suggest to me that a person is incapable of logic and reason, which would call his general decision-making ability into question, I don't regard creationism per se as a make-or-break issue in a candidate for political office, except in the case of the local school board. It's a big strike against, but I can imagine a situation in which bigger strikes against other candidates would have me holding my nose and pulling the lever for a creationist.

[KingMerv00]

If your not a creationist, would you ever vote for one?

No. I don't vote republican.

[Free Thinkr]

So my answer is "absolutely not". Being anti-science is on my short list of show stoppers.

Interested what others think.
I'm with you.

[IXP]

No. The lack of critical thinking skills is an absolute disqualification.

IXP

[corplinx]

I don't have a woo litmus test for office. I don't know of any skeptic candidates. I'm not sure how many of you know this, but every candidate left in the race believes in an invisible version of santa claus keeping a naughty/nice list, but instead of getting coal you get eternal damnation.

I think singling out creationist thoughts is just democrat leaning skeptics trying to justify their choice of woo.

[skeptical]

I don't have a woo litmus test for office. I don't know of any skeptic candidates. I'm not sure how many of you know this, but every candidate left in the race believes in an invisible version of santa claus keeping a naughty/nice list, but instead of getting coal you get eternal damnation.

I think singling out creationist thoughts is just democrat leaning skeptics trying to justify their choice of woo.

So, you think there is no difference between someone who accepts the evidence of evolution, but thinks a magical being was behind it, and someone who just outright rejects the evidence of science because it conflicts with their literal reading of the Bible?

And no, I don't like ANY of the woo, but since there is not likely to be a "woo free" president in my lifetime, I try to keep it to a minimum.

And trust me, if there was a creationist on either side, there is no way they would get my vote.

Its kind of moot for this election anyway, since it appears that McCain is all but a lock, and he was NOT one of those who raised their hands as not accepting evolution. So, I am not trying to justify anything.

I see the creationist/literalist meme as particularly dangerous to scientific progress, so that is one of my primary hot buttons, and I was just curious if others felt the same.

[m_huber]

I don't have a woo litmus test for office. I don't know of any skeptic candidates. I'm not sure how many of you know this, but every candidate left in the race believes in an invisible version of santa claus keeping a naughty/nice list, but instead of getting coal you get eternal damnation.

I think singling out creationist thoughts is just democrat leaning skeptics trying to justify their choice of woo.

There is a pretty big difference between believing something that you have no evidence for and believing something that you do have evidence against. I'm sure that we could all think of things that we believe without having a "reason"; it's just that these things aren't usually on the scale of believing in a god. Particularly when considering the importance and fluidity of god in society, the meaning of "I believe in God" is not a statement that means very much; it could range from "I completely trust in Jesus" to "I believe that some higher power exists."

Besides Huckabee, I'm not convinced that any of the remaining candidates really believe in god. But they do have strong beliefs in democracy.

[corplinx]

There is a pretty big difference between believing something that you have no evidence for and believing something that you do have evidence against

Its not like american christians sit around reading talk origins. They don't have the evidence. They don't pursue the info. Most of their teachers avoided the subject in biology class to avoid controversy.

You can't say they have the evidence. Before I became a skeptic and later an atheist, I was a fundamentalist christian and I can tell you that I was never exposed to the evidence for evolution in an impartial way.

There is some sort of allegory involving a cave that is probably fairly apt here.

But yes, hating on creationists is fun so let's all brag about how cool we are for drawing a line in the sand and not voting for someone because we choose their particular ignorance to be the unforgivable one.

[KingMerv00]

Its not like american christians sit around reading talk origins. They don't have the evidence. They don't pursue the info. Most of their teachers avoided the subject in biology class to avoid controversy.

You can't say they have the evidence. Before I became a skeptic and later an atheist, I was a fundamentalist christian and I can tell you that I was never exposed to the evidence for evolution in an impartial way.

There is some sort of allegory involving a cave that is probably fairly apt here.

But yes, hating on creationists is fun so let's all brag about how cool we are for drawing a line in the sand and not voting for someone because we choose their particular ignorance to be the unforgivable one.

I could forgive a candidate if they said, "I'm not sure." or "I haven't looked at the evidence yet."

A fully grown adult has had the chance to do a little research. If they still say "I am a creationist" it means:

1) They didn't look at the evidence and came to a very wrong conclusion. I won't trust someone who makes conclusions without considering opposing opinions.

2) They saw the evidence and concluded incorrectly. I don't trust their critical thinking skills.

[corplinx]

Why didn't they look at the evidence behind the Bible itself? They are grown men. The evidence is out there. Why don't they research the historical Jesus?

Again, creationism is being singled out.

[fishbob]

Its not like american christians sit around reading talk origins. They don't have the evidence. They don't pursue the info. Most of their teachers avoided the subject in biology class to avoid controversy.

You can't say they have the evidence. Before I became a skeptic and later an atheist, I was a fundamentalist christian and I can tell you that I was never exposed to the evidence for evolution in an impartial way.

There is some sort of allegory involving a cave that is probably fairly apt here.

But yes, hating on creationists is fun so let's all brag about how cool we are for drawing a line in the sand and not voting for someone because we choose their particular ignorance to be the unforgivable one.

Sorry, but in the USA the information is there. Anybody can go look up evidence for evolution. Many choose not to - eyes closed, fingers in the ears, don't want to know. Deliberate ignorance is intellectually dishonest (also one of the definitions of 'stupidity').

Others know better, but realize how much money can be made from the faithful. These are con artists, also dishonest.

Facing reality and dealing with complex issues requires honesty.
You see how this leaves creationists sucking wind?

[Upchurch]

Again, creationism is being singled out.
True, but I think for good reason. Politically speaking, the pro-creationists manifest themselves largely as pro-"creationism taught in school"-ists. This has a direct and immediate effect on American youth and a long term effect on our ability to keep up as a nation in science.

I think that matters.

[KingMerv00]

Why didn't they look at the evidence behind the Bible itself? They are grown men. The evidence is out there. Why don't they research the historical Jesus?

Again, creationism is being singled out.

I agree that a belief in God is misguided but it varies so much from person to person that it may have a minimal impact on their political lives. Huckabee allows his belief in God to dictate his policies while a more moderate Christian like Obama can make decisions without thinking of the Bible. As such, theism isn't a make or break issue for me.

Creationism is disgusting because it is indicative of a disrespect for the scientific process and critical thinking in general.

[Jonnyclueless]

Come to think of it, I think I would vote for the candidate that thinks he (or she) can bring about the end of the world. Get it over with so we can stop complaining. ;-)

[corplinx]

Creationism is disgusting because it is indicative of a disrespect for the scientific process and critical thinking in general.

If you want to believe that simple ignorance is disdain, go ahead. This is why creationists distrust buttholes like you. I should know since I was once one of them. Just because the idiots leading up the anti-evolution textbook drives have an us v. them attitude doesn't mean the enlightened need to reciprocate by taking the same sort of bunker mentality. These kinds of attitudes just convince them of their rightness.

[m_huber]

Why didn't they look at the evidence behind the Bible itself? They are grown men. The evidence is out there. Why don't they research the historical Jesus?

Again, creationism is being singled out.

Creationism is a specific aspect of a small branch of Christianity. That small branch has come to be quite influential in the US, but it is not by any stretch representative of all Christians. While a Christian can and often will do just about anything that an Atheist can and will do, a creationist has a distinct behavioral difference. Just as creationists mean much more than "evolution" when they say "Evolution doesn't exist," we all mean much more than "person who doesn't believe that evolution took place" when we say "creationist." A person who believes in God can conceivably set that belief to the side at will (as politicians do). A person who believes that entire branches of science are completely invalid cannot set that belief to the side on a whim (as creationists have demonstrated).

[KingMerv00]

...buttholes like you.

:rolleyes:

I should know since I was once one of them. Just because the idiots leading up the anti-evolution textbook drives have an us v. them attitude doesn't mean the enlightened need to reciprocate by taking the same sort of bunker mentality. These kinds of attitudes just convince them of their rightness.

I don't expect every citizen to be informed about evolution. Many people don't have the time, the interest to dig through talkorigins, or an effective science education. For them, it might be a case of simple ignorance.

I expect more from those who could have an influence over science education in America. They owe it to their constituents to research controversial issues. If a candidate looks into the evolution/creation "debate" and is still a creationist, they are using faith to shape their scientific worldview. That habit might be fine for my tailor, not my president.

[Elind]

Since the Huckster is the only of the "3 monkeys" still in the race, this thought was on my mind a bit.

And for clarity, I am talking about either YEC's or OEC's, not someone who believes in "theistic evolution", but someone who thinks the facts of science must be bent to fit their religious text. The kind of person who would raise their hand on national tv to the question "who here doesn't believe in evolution".

So my answer is "absolutely not". Being anti-science is on my short list of show stoppers.

Interested what others think.

Would you vote for a Mormon? How about replacing "science" with "thinking"? (never mind that others fit the bill).

[skeptical]

Would you vote for a Mormon? How about replacing "science" with "thinking"? (never mind that others fit the bill).

I actually thought seriously about this question. Mormonism is definitely full of woo, and that is a big problem for me.

However, Mitt did _not_ raise his hand that he did not accept evolution, so that is bonus, and revived him at least above Huck for me.

Then, he went and lost me again with his "freedom requires religion" nonsense. But, that may have just been pandering given he was desperate to get the "evangelical" vote.

So, I have to say that if my choice was between a Mormon who was _not_ a creationist, and a creationist, I would go Mormon, even if the creationist was more qualified in other areas.

I just don't see how anyone can consider themselves part of the skeptical/science movement and still vote for someone who is intent on tearing down all that science has brought us, and that is exactly what creationists are intent on doing.

[skeptical]

If you want to believe that simple ignorance is disdain, go ahead. This is why creationists distrust buttholes like you. I should know since I was once one of them. Just because the idiots leading up the anti-evolution textbook drives have an us v. them attitude doesn't mean the enlightened need to reciprocate by taking the same sort of bunker mentality. These kinds of attitudes just convince them of their rightness.

That hardly seems necessary. They need nothing to convince them they are right, they are already convinced of that. No amount of logic or evidence is going to change their mind because they _know_ that they have the answers through faith, not reason. Anything which contradicts the Bible is wrong, its just that simple to them.

Not confronting them, forcefully, wherever their insidious idiocy raises its head is nothing more than accommodation. The path of Neville Chamberlain is not the answer. Fanatics will not suddenly stop being fanatical because people are nicer to them.

Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and his ilk are NOT ignorant, they know the evidence perfectly well. Its just that they know that the Bible must be right, and it is the final authority on science questions, therefore if it takes little lying then so what, they are winning souls. No civility or evidential arguments will ever change that.

[m_huber]

Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and his ilk are NOT ignorant, they know the evidence perfectly well. Its just that they know that the Bible must be right, and it is the final authority on science questions, therefore if it takes little lying then so what, they are winning souls. No civility or evidential arguments will ever change that.

Absolutely right. I found this video while researching Ken Ham for a lecture I am giving soon:

Zk_Wv2mn5Yk

[KingMerv00]

Absolutely right. I found this video while researching Ken Ham for a lecture I am giving soon:

Zk_Wv2mn5Yk

Way off topic but...worst...beard...ever.

Edit: No offense intended to the Amish JREFers.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Way off topic but...worst...beard...ever.

Edit: No offense intended to the Amish JREFers.

I think he looks more like Alley Oop, an irony people have been relishing for many years now.

[Gregoire]

More than likely I would and will. I haven't heard Obama or Clinton specify the details of their religious belief, but I wouldn't be surprised if they thought some aspect of the universe was magiced into existence.


Last year Hillary, Obama and Edwards had an hour on CNN to discuss their religious views. It was an hour of silliness to the extreme, but as you point out, not very surprising. I especially remember some commentors stressing how important religion had really been to Hillary in getting through the Lewinsky affair. According to them, Hillary was being very genuine in the discussion; it was not just an act.

It seemed to me that the point of all of it was to show that Republicans are not the only ones who are irrational deeply religious. :rolleyes:

To answer the OP: It is true I am very happy Huckabee is out of it, especially given what P Z Meyers has quoted him as saying about amending the Constitution. But politics for me always comes down choosing the least of all evils, so it is hard for me to pick any single issue as an absolute deal breaker in all cases.

[Gregoire]

I could forgive a candidate if they said, "I'm not sure." or "I haven't looked at the evidence yet."

A fully grown adult has had the chance to do a little research. If they still say "I am a creationist" it means:

1) They didn't look at the evidence and came to a very wrong conclusion. I won't trust someone who makes conclusions without considering opposing opinions.

2) They saw the evidence and concluded incorrectly. I don't trust their critical thinking skills.



I agree with you in principle, but the problem is you can find lots of irrational beliefs politicians hold or claim to hold on a whole multitude of issues. Without getting into a political discussion, just consider what politicians in either party generally say about Economics. It often seems like many of them are flagrantly ignoring an entire field of study (or contradicting it after going through the evidence).

[corplinx]

T
Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and his ilk are NOT ignorant,

Last I checked, Hovind was actually a criminal.

[KingMerv00]

I agree with you in principle, but the problem is you can find lots of irrational beliefs politicians hold or claim to hold on a whole multitude of issues. Without getting into a political discussion, just consider what politicians in either party generally say about Economics. It often seems like many of them are flagrantly ignoring an entire field of study (or contradicting it after going through the evidence).

Entirely possible but I don't know my economic woo. If a candidate puts out too much woo in any field of study, I wouldn't vote for them.

[KingMerv00]

Last I checked, Hovind was actually a criminal.

Yes he is. How is that important to the matter at hand?

[skeptical]

Last I checked, Hovind was actually a criminal.

Does that make him ignorant of science or just a criminal? Sorry, I don't see the connection.

[bokonon]

I just don't see how anyone can consider themselves part of the skeptical/science movement and still vote for someone who is intent on tearing down all that science has brought us, and that is exactly what creationists are intent on doing.
I don't think that's true. I'm pretty sure Bush is a creationist, but he's still advocating that stupid "Mars needs men!" program. The creationists don't want to take your cell phones away, or burn the pharmacies, or dismantle the power grid. They just want to teach their moronic myths instead of evolution.

[Elind]

I actually thought seriously about this question. Mormonism is definitely full of woo, and that is a big problem for me.

However, Mitt did _not_ raise his hand that he did not accept evolution, so that is bonus, and revived him at least above Huck for me.

Then, he went and lost me again with his "freedom requires religion" nonsense. But, that may have just been pandering given he was desperate to get the "evangelical" vote.

So, I have to say that if my choice was between a Mormon who was _not_ a creationist, and a creationist, I would go Mormon, even if the creationist was more qualified in other areas.

I just don't see how anyone can consider themselves part of the skeptical/science movement and still vote for someone who is intent on tearing down all that science has brought us, and that is exactly what creationists are intent on doing.

That we have to live with religion is a given, but when it comes to Presidents one has to ask how they make the most difficult of decisions, not the simple logical ones. One suspects that Bush waits for the word to pop into his mind, and the likes of Huckabee would certainly listen for a voice "telling" him what to do, not tell himself what to do.

As to someone like Romney, I'd vote for him to run a business. He seems smart enough on practical issues, but when it comes to President of the USA, I would like to think that documented fables of golden plates found by an obvious philandering con man to start a blatantly racist polygamist church (they were forced to give that up involuntarily) warrant more thought than "I will stand by the religion of my fathers come what may" (paraphrased).

Either he has mental blocks that prevent thought in certain areas, or he places his "tribe" before the country.

I'm thankful he decided to save his money and withdraw:rolleyes:

[Lemastre]

Although our presidential candidates are by tradition required to espouse some sort of religion, however tepidly, I would find it very hard to vote for an admitted creationist. That would be too blatant evidence that the candidate has no understanding of science or respect for the scientific method and probably thinks that fairy-tale explanations for natural phenomena are the same as knowledge. How refreshing it would be if a candidate could admit that he has no interest in or belief in any supernatural anything.

[skeptical]

I don't think that's true. I'm pretty sure Bush is a creationist, but he's still advocating that stupid "Mars needs men!" program. The creationists don't want to take your cell phones away, or burn the pharmacies, or dismantle the power grid. They just want to teach their moronic myths instead of evolution.

That is the current focus, but that is not the end game.

The "wedge" document lays out pretty clearly that they are intent on making religion an integral, essential part of any science research. My interpretation of that is that anything which disagrees with the Bible will be taboo or at least severely restricted.

There are some technologies that they can live with that they think don't directly contradict the Bible, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't restrict them in a heart beat if they thought they did.

I may sound alarmist, but is because I am alarmed.

[skeptical]

Although our presidential candidates are by tradition required to espouse some sort of religion, however tepidly, I would find it very hard to vote for an admitted creationist. That would be too blatant evidence that the candidate has no understanding of science or respect for the scientific method and probably thinks that fairy-tale explanations for natural phenomena are the same as knowledge. How refreshing it would be if a candidate could admit that he has no interest in or belief in any supernatural anything.

It is almost certain that any candidate who admitted such would be unelectable. I forget the exact number, but IIRC only 48% of the US populace would vote for an atheist of their own party who was otherwise qualified. That is by far the lowest number of any "minority" group including Muslims and Gays. (and this is across party lines)

In the US there is only 1 member of Congress who has publicly admitted their "non belief", although I'm certain there are others that dare not admit it.

[KingMerv00]

That is the current focus, but that is not the end game.

The "wedge" document lays out pretty clearly that they are intent on making religion an integral, essential part of any science research. My interpretation of that is that anything which disagrees with the Bible will be taboo or at least severely restricted.

There are some technologies that they can live with that they think don't directly contradict the Bible, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't restrict them in a heart beat if they thought they did.

I may sound alarmist, but is because I am alarmed.

Bolding mine.

The "they" you speak of is limited to the writers and supporters of the Wedge document, not necessarily the average creationist. I think your alarm is a little sensitive.

[skeptical]

Bolding mine.

The "they" you speak of is limited to the writers and supporters of the Wedge document, not necessarily the average creationist. I think your alarm is a little sensitive.

Perhaps. :)

However, I do think there is good evidence that these views are more wide spread then just the authors and their immediate associates. The DI gets lots of money from Christian fundamentalist groups that represent more than just a few fanatics.

I often wonder if I am too paranoid about their intentions, or not paranoid enough.

[KingMerv00]

Perhaps. :)

However, I do think there is good evidence that these views are more wide spread then just the authors and their immediate associates. The DI gets lots of money from Christian fundamentalist groups that represent more than just a few fanatics.

I often wonder if I am too paranoid about their intentions, or not paranoid enough.

Well if they can't get Huckabee the nomination, they can't be all that powerful.

[skeptical]

Well if they can't get Huckabee the nomination, they can't be all that powerful.

Hmmm, not sure I agree with that. It is not necessary to get a creationist elected president to advance the creationist agenda. It helps, to be sure, just look at the last 8 yrs. But, it's not required.

This is particularly true in the education system. Almost all curriculum decisions are by local school boards. Despite legal precedents against creationism being taught, local school boards are under constant pressure from creationists to give equal time to ID or to just ignore the topic of evolution altogether.

Organizations like AIG and ICR are donor driven, they don't need govt support to help them. Ken Ham tours the US idoctrinating kids in creationism with no govt agency backing him, and teaches these kids to try to advance the creationist agenda in the classroom on their own.

So just because they can't put a bible thumping huckster (pun intended) into the Whitehouse _this_ time around, I'm not sure that's a good litmus test. On top of which, he has given McCain far more than a run for his money in some recent elections. McCain only one Va 50% to 41% for example.

McCain will get the Repub nomination this time, but I don't think that should lull us into thinking that the creationists are going to roll over and play dead.

[Ocelot]

As a disenfranchised member of the 51st state my view of the US presidential candidates is somewhat beside the point. However the question in the OP is more wide ranging. It would seem to apply to any election including the social secretary of my university caving club or the chairman of the board of governors for my son's school. Clearly someone's affirmation of creationist ideas is of far greater concern in the latter case.

Out here on this side of the pond I'm more likely to get an atheist candidate. In the US we're told 50% of people reject evolution. In the UK The House of Commons has a cross party humanist group. As such making this sort of anti creationist pledge is less likely to be cutting off my nose to spite my face. What I mean is that I imagine that it's not entirely unfeasible for all the candidates in a US election to reject evolution. Therefore someone who made this pledge would be potentially disenfranchising themselves. I proudly expect that this is somewhat less likely over here. Lets hope that such pride does not precede the allegorical fall.

I read recently that democracy is like going to the supermarket and instead of picking the products you wanted you can only choose between two trolleys preloaded with products picked by someone else. To stretch the analogy even further there's no guarantee that you get the trolley you pick. Everybody gets the same trolley and if more people want the other one, then that's the one you're saddled with. Also even if you're lucky enough to have a majority behind your decision the picker retains the right to make last minute substitutions for the next four or however many years.

Now when I see creationist brand products in the trolley that worries me. It's a strong disincentive to pick that trolley. Not only are those products I don't want, products I think are harmful but the fact that the picker chose them makes me question their judgement. Nonetheless there are still worse choices that could be present in all the alternative trolleys. I might for example choose the trolley tainted with creationist brand products over the trolley that contains the blemish of goods from the racism line. The lesser of two evils is still evil but you know what? So am I sometimes.

Also the creationism brand products might sit in a trolley alongside goods I simply must have. Goods not present on the other shopping lists. Can I put up with creationist brand muesli if it's the only way to get hold of the a top of the range first aid kit?

Of course sometimes the picker doesn't have the opportunity to choose a product from the creationism brand. Lets say that this election we're choosing between trolleys that only contain cleaning products. Lets also say that the creationist brand doesn't have an offerings in this range. Knowing that they were a creationist might make me question their judgement - will they prefer to pick the soap powder with the best commercials over the one that performs best under testing? All else being equal I would pick the non creationist - the two trolleys I see presented may be exactly the same but I trust the non-creationist to make better choices in the future. However it's not usual for all else to be equal. I might value cleanliness as a worthwhile public pursuit. What if despite my reservations about their selection methods it's nonetheless the creationist who has picked what I consider to be solid reliable brands whilst the only alternative trolley is filled with shoddy own label products that I believe to be a false economy. Should I support dodgy watered down thin bleach as a protest against irrelevant creationism? In this instance suspect that the candidates' attitudes to cleaning products is more important than their view of evolution.

Creationism, it's a factor. Not, the most important factor and certainly I can't imagine it being an overriding factor but a pretty important one nonetheless. More importantly, it's a strong indicator of their position on other issues. The main reason I'm unlikely to pick the trolley with creationist brand products is that the supermarkets are doing a special offer. Buy anything from their creationist range of fruitcakes and you get a half price deal on uber nationalist dairy goods, cheap imported kitchenware from "cutting-public-services" incorporated and homophobic vegetables (many of which are secretly fruit). It's perhaps ironic that those who oppose evolution seem so often to be those who are least enlightened by it's effects.

[thaiboxerken]

How many Creationists would vote for an "Evilutionist?"

[INRM]

It would definetly be a disappointment if a political candidate was a creationist, but so long as they upheld the constitution, protected civil rights, and didn't legislate their religious beliefs into law, I could overlook it.

INRM

[corplinx]

How many Creationists would vote for an "Evilutionist?"

Before the south was solid GOP territory, I remember evangelicals loving democrats. I remember people in Sunday school praying for the "unsaved walter mondale".

[Elind]

It would definetly be a disappointment if a political candidate was a creationist, but so long as they upheld the constitution, protected civil rights, and didn't legislate their religious beliefs into law, I could overlook it.

INRM

And you would believe them when they said that they would do such things?

What about their attitude to support science? Do you think there might be a tiny tendency to think that God will take care of the big picture and major knowledge advances are an unnecessary expense when there are so many faith based charities to support?:boxedin:

[linusrichard]

It's certainly not the most important issue. Most likely, the candidate who doesn't believe in evolution is also fairly socially conservative, especially compared with the candidate who does.

But if Hypothetical Candidate A was a strong supporter of gay marriage, abortion rights, bringing home the troops, reducing carbon emissions, reducing dependence on foreign oil, reducing dependence on fossil fuels in general, and national healthcare, etc., etc., and happened to be a Democrat, but didn't believe in evolution, and Hypothetical Candidate B had all the opposite positions and happened to be a Republican, but believed in evolution, I would not hesitate to vote for Hypothetical Candidate A.

I don't like single-issue voting in general, and if I were going to pick a single issue, that sure wouldn't be it.