GOP Presidential Hopefuls De-evolving

[Regnad Kcin]

The field split on another issue, with [Kansas Senator Sam] Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raising their hands when moderator Chris Matthews asked who did not believe in evolution.GOP Candidates Face Off for First Time (http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/050307/_a/gop-candidates-debate/20070503032009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I was going to make a thread about this!

I find it quite strange though that McCain and Rommey believe in evolution.


I was listening to Brownback's responses and that guy is nuttier than trail mix. Opposes all forms of abortion, wants religion in the "public square", wants to attack Iran, denies evolution, opposes stem cell research...

[Upchurch]

I find it quite strange though that McCain and Rommey believe in evolution.
Why do you find it strange?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Why do you find it strange?


He strikes me as a bible thumping Jesus freak creationist. Based on his political stances most of which people who are bible thumping Jesus freak creationists hold, I always assumed he didn't believe in evolution.

[Upchurch]

McCain?

[Regnad Kcin]

I was going to make a thread about this!

...I was listening to Brownback's responses and that guy is nuttier than trail mix. Opposes all forms of abortion, wants religion in the "public square", wants to attack Iran, denies evolution, opposes stem cell research...The thread title was almost: "GOP Hopefuls Plead with Voters to Choose Someone Other than Themselves."

[Dustin Kesselberg]

McCain?


Yes.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain

[Darth Rotor]

He strikes me as a bible thumping Jesus freak creationist. Based on his political stances most of which people who are bible thumping Jesus freak creationists hold, I always assumed he didn't believe in evolution.
I suggest you read a book by Captain Eugene "Red" McDaniel.

It was originally titled "Before Honor" and I think was republished as "Scars and Stripes."

You might then understand a bit better how McCain's views were forged. I'd be surprised were he not a Believer.

DR

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I suggest you read a book by Captain Eugene "Red" McDaniel.

It was originally titled "Before Honor" and I think was republished as "Scars and Stripes."

You might then understand a bit better how McCain's views were forged. I'd be surprised were he not a Believer.

DR

Care to elaborate? I don't have time to read such a book anytime soon.

[Darth Rotor]

Care to elaborate? I don't have time to read such a book anytime soon.
I will elaborate very succinctly.

Read the book I referred to, and stop relying on Wiki for your information.

Educate yourself.

You can lead a man to books, but you can't make him read.

Be man, and consider that the E in JREF is for education. It's not a long book, less than three hundred pages.

DR

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I will elaborate very succinctly.

Good.

Read the book I referred to,


I thought you were going to elaborate. Not direct me to a book which I have already said I didn't have time to read.


and stop relying on Wiki for your information.

I never rely on Wikipedia for any of my information. I use it as a tool for gathering general knowledge on a subject but never do I "rely on it for information".


Educate yourself.

I am. I'm asking you. I don't have time to read the book so you're the only means for which I can educate myself on your specific claim.

You can lead a man to books, but you can't make him read.

:rolleyes:

Be man, and consider that the E in JREF is for education. It's not a long book, less than three hundred pages.
DR

Don't have time to read it. Barely have time to read my current reading list.

If you're arguing that John McCain is a theist because he was tortured, this isn't a valid argument.

[Piggy]

He strikes me as a bible thumping Jesus freak creationist. Based on his political stances most of which people who are bible thumping Jesus freak creationists hold, I always assumed he didn't believe in evolution.

Here we see the flaw in reasoning by analogy.

And btw, if you think McCain is a "bible thumping Jesus freak", you need to come out to my neck of the woods and visit a while. You'll come to find out what a Bible-thumping Jesus freak really looks like -- and it ain't John McCain.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Here we see the flaw in reasoning by analogy.

And btw, if you think McCain is a "bible thumping Jesus freak", you need to come out to my neck of the woods and visit a while. You'll come to find out what a Bible-thumping Jesus freak really looks like -- and it ain't John McCain.

You're talking to a guy who lived most of his life in the Bible Belt...

[Darth Rotor]

I thought you were going to elaborate. Not direct me to a book which I have already said I didn't have time to read.
.
You have time to spend Inappropriate remark removed. all over an internet forum, but not time to read a good book?

Gee, what a surprise, you profess willful ignorance, yet again.

The E in JREF is for education.

Try it sometime.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

You're talking to a guy who lived most of his life in the Bible Belt...
That doesn't mean you learned anything, and by your body of work on this forum, you have not learned much, regardless of where you were raised.

Babe in the woods. It is curable, but only if you reject willful ignorance.

The choice, Dustin, is yours.

DR

[Piggy]

You're talking to a guy who lived most of his life in the Bible Belt...

Then why do you think JM is a Jesus freak?

Sure, he's cozied back up to Falwell, but that just makes him Machiavellian.

Seriously, what statements or actions of his have inclined you to lump him in that category?

You said it's because of his "political stances" which BTJF's hold -- but not on religious stances?

I just don't get that.

Have you lived in the deep woods of the Bible belt... or in a secular enclave? Just curious.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You have time to spend Breach of Membership Agreement removed all over an internet forum, but not time to read a good book?

Gee, what a surprise, you profess willful ignorance, yet again.

The E in JREF is for education.

Try it sometime.

DR

Respond to my actual post and stop the childish insults and copouts.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That doesn't mean you learned anything, and by your body of work on this forum, you have not learned much, regardless of where you were raised.

Examples?

Babe in the woods. It is curable, but only if you reject willful ignorance.

The choice, Dustin, is yours.

DR

I'm "willfully" ignorant because I don't have time to read a 300 page book just to get the answer to a vague claim you made?

Speaking of ignorance...:rolleyes:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then why do you think JM is a Jesus freak?

Sure, he's cozied back up to Falwell, but that just makes him Machiavellian.

Seriously, what statements or actions of his have inclined you to lump him in that category?

You said it's because of his "political stances" which BTJF's hold -- but not on religious stances?

I just don't get that.

Have you lived in the deep woods of the Bible belt... or in a secular enclave? Just curious.

Let's see...

Opposes gay marriage.
Opposes Abortion.
Supports "faith based" groups.
In 1999 he has said that the schools decisions to teach evolution should "be made locally".
Supports prayer and religious symbols in public schools.
He voted to spend $75M for abstinence education.
Supports Constitutional ban on flag desecration.
Rated 83% by the Christian Coalition.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

This is pretty close to the "BTJF" I was talking about. The fact that he believes in evolution seems to be out of sync with the rest of his stances.

[NeoRicen]

To me McCain's response didn't seem to me like he was answering from his own beliefs, he seemed like he was trying to give the best answer for his political benefit.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

To me McCain's response didn't seem to me like he was answering from his own beliefs, he seemed like he was trying to give the best answer for his political benefit.


This is a possibility but McCain doesn't strike me as the type of guy who would lie out right just to further his political position. He might avoid questions here and there or change the subject but I doubt he would say he believes in something when he doesn't just to get votes. Moreover, In the United States I don't think believing in evolution is a political advantage. Especially with most Americans don't. I think McCain is smart enough to know that.

[Regnad Kcin]

......

Friends, no need to snip back and forth on points unrelated to the thread. Many thanks!

(BTW, Don Imus' hair is not nappy.)

[Piggy]

Let's see...

Opposes gay marriage.
Opposes Abortion.
Supports "faith based" groups.
In 1999 he has said that the schools decisions to teach evolution should "be made locally".
Supports prayer and religious symbols in public schools.
He voted to spend $75M for abstinence education.
Supports Constitutional ban on flag desecration.
Rated 83% by the Christian Coalition.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

This is pretty close to the "BTJF" I was talking about. The fact that he believes in evolution seems to be out of sync with the rest of his stances.

Thanks. I can see where you're coming from now.

I guess I'm too deep in the clay out here. When I think BTJF, I'm thinking about the folks holding signs and Bibles and hollering at traffic thru bullhorns out by the Wal-Mart.

I know a lot of "mainstream" establishment types around here who believe everything on that list. So from my point of view, that doesn't put a guy at BTJF level.

Just a perspective difference, I guess. I appreciate the post.

[daredelvis]

I suggest you read a book by Captain Eugene "Red" McDaniel.

It was originally titled "Before Honor" and I think was republished as "Scars and Stripes."

You might then understand a bit better how McCain's views were forged. I'd be surprised were he not a Believer.

DR

I will elaborate very succinctly.

Read the book I referred to, and stop relying on Wiki for your information.

Educate yourself.

You can lead a man to books, but you can't make him read.

Be man, and consider that the E in JREF is for education. It's not a long book, less than three hundred pages.

DR

DR I think you are a little out of line here. If you have evidence that counters Dustin's claims you should spell it out. You brought it up, you should back it up.

Personally I have little interest in how McCain developed his views of the world. I disagree with him on the issues and will not vote for him. But, I do have a high level of respect for the man and what he did, and sacrificed in the service of his country. I still don't want him leading it.

It is rather arrogant to suggest a reading list as a form of argument, and I am surprised to see you do it. It comes across as small and petty.

Daredelvis

[ImaginalDisc]

I lost track of what was going on, what was the opinion of the rich old white guy?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6958463b423a7be3b.jpg

No, not that one, the other one.

[HarryKeogh]

I lost track of what was going on, what as the opinion of the rich old white guy?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6958463b423a7be3b.jpg

No, not that one, the other one.

The one with the dark suit and red tie?

[ImaginalDisc]

The one with the dark suit and red tie?

No, the other one in the dark suit and red tie.

[HarryKeogh]

No, the other one in the dark suit and red tie.

The one who thinks gays are evil?

[ImaginalDisc]

The one who thinks gays are evil?

Yeah, and he's the one who claims that electing a Democrat will make us vulnerable to another 9/11 despite the fact that a Republican was President at the time.

You know, which makes him entirely unlike the others.

[KingMerv00]

Yeah, and he's the one who claims that electing a Democrat will make us vulnerable to another 9/11 despite the fact that a Republican was President at the time.

You know, which makes him entirely unlike the others.

Oh I like him. He supports education, the middle-class, and single mothers.

[Upchurch]

This is pretty close to the "BTJF" I was talking about. The fact that he believes in evolution seems to be out of sync with the rest of his stances.
I'm lost on what BTJF stands for, but you do understand that most Christians are not, in fact, bible literalists or creationists, right?

[boooeee]

Oh I like him. He supports education, the middle-class, and single mothers.


But what is his stance on small business owners? Does he support the troops?

I'm not just a "one platitude" voter, you know. A candidate needs to pander to a wide variety of issues to get my vote.

[thaiboxerken]

Which one doesn't believe in evolution?

[Kerberos]

Which one doesn't believe in evolution?

Am I missing some sort of joke, or did you fail to read all of the two lines of the OP?

[Tony]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the notion of "believing" in evolution inaccurate? Evolution is established science backed-up by evidence. It no more requires "belief" than gravity or the sky being blue.

[Chaos]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the notion of "believing" in evolution inaccurate? Evolution is established science backed-up by evidence. It no more requires "belief" than gravity or the sky being blue.

Sure, you´re right - technically.

This, however, is politics. In politics, you definitely need belief to accept that the sky is blue - at least if the other party was first to claim that it is blue.

[Piggy]

I'm lost on what BTJF stands for, but you do understand that most Christians are not, in fact, bible literalists or creationists, right?
"Bible-thumping Jesus freak"

And the majority status of creationists/literalists depends on where you are.

[Darth Rotor]

It is rather arrogant to suggest a reading list as a form of argument, and I am surprised to see you do it.
Daredelvis
Since I didn't do that, I suggested reading, but not as a form of argument, how about you unbunch your panties?

Note to mods: I'll keep replying to this line of crap until you move his post as well as mine.

DR

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm lost on what BTJF stands for, but you do understand that most Christians are not, in fact, bible literalists or creationists, right?

Bible Thumping Jesus Freak. I just made it up.

Most Christians are not bible literalists or creationists? I don't know. In America they probably are.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the notion of "believing" in evolution inaccurate? Evolution is established science backed-up by evidence. It no more requires "belief" than gravity or the sky being blue.


"Belief" being defined as 'any cognitive content held as true' would imply otherwise. Beliefs can be true or false. Evolution happens to be true but people who hold it to be true still believe it.

[Piggy]

Evolution happens to be true but people who hold it to be true still believe it.[/SIZE]

Believe it, yes. But I think it's improper to say we "believe in" it.

One would not say, for instance, "I believe in gravity".

So asking if a person "believes in" evolution does indeed imply -- and not subtly -- that evolution is something to "believe in", like religion.

[Piggy]

Most Christians are not bible literalists or creationists? I don't know. In America they probably are.
Around here, I'd be willing to take an even money bet that most are. In Vermont or California, I wouldn't.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Believe it, yes. But I think it's improper to say we "believe in" it.

One would not say, for instance, "I believe in gravity".

So asking if a person "believes in" evolution does indeed imply -- and not subtly -- that evolution is something to "believe in", like religion.

Technically by the definition of the word "believe" it's not incorrect to say one "believes in gravity". Gravity is cognitive content held as true thus it's a belief. Whether it is true or not in reality is irrelevant.

The question "Do you believe in Evolution" is technically a correct question. The people who did not raise their hands didn't not raise them because they didn't think the question was grammatically correct. They didn't raise them because they do not think evolution is true.

[Piggy]

Technically by the definition of the word "believe" it's not incorrect to say one "believes in gravity". Gravity is cognitive content held as true thus it's a belief. Whether it is true or not in reality is irrelevant.

The question "Do you believe in Evolution" is technically a correct question. The people who did not raise their hands didn't not raise them because they didn't think the question was grammatically correct. They didn't raise them because they do not think evolution is true.

"Technically by the definition" is irrelevant to actual language.

I say this as someone who has studied and worked with language his entire adult life (and much of his pre-adult life, for that matter).

Seriously, you can't go running to a dictionary or musing logically and expect the results to be applicable to the real-world, real-time psychology of language.

I agree that the folks who raised their hands were indicating that they do not believe that evolutionary theory is true. I don't think anyone disputes that.

What is significant to me is that asking if a person "believes in" evolution is a loaded question. By phrasing it that way, evolutionary theory is cast not merely as something one believes or does not believe, but as something one "believes in" or does not "believe in".

The difference is real, and it is significant. In the real world, that is. "Technically by the definition" simply doesn't matter.

[billydkid]

GOP Candidates Face Off for First Time (http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/050307/_a/gop-candidates-debate/20070503032009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

I find it terrifying that we have several serious candidates for President who don't "believe in" evolution. I guess it shouldn't since we have had a number of years with a person occupying the oval office who believes evolution is "one theory", with "God did it" being the other equivalent opposing theory. There are only a few reasons why a person might not believe in evolution. One might be that they are very stupid. Another is that they don't care about the truth of things. Both are scary qualities to have in a person seeking to be elected to the most powerful office on earth.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

"Technically by the definition" is irrelevant to actual language.

I say this as someone who has studied and worked with language his entire adult life (and much of his pre-adult life, for that matter).

Seriously, you can't go running to a dictionary or musing logically and expect the results to be applicable to the real-world, real-time psychology of language.

I agree that the folks who raised their hands were indicating that they do not believe that evolutionary theory is true. I don't think anyone disputes that.

What is significant to me is that asking if a person "believes in" evolution is a loaded question. By phrasing it that way, evolutionary theory is cast not merely as something one believes or does not believe, but as something one "believes in" or does not "believe in".

The difference is real, and it is significant. In the real world, that is. "Technically by the definition" simply doesn't matter.



How would you prefer the question have been phrased?

[Piggy]

How would you prefer the question have been phrased?

I don't have a preference for facts, for events which have already occurred.

And I don't mean that to be flippant. The thing is, I'm not saying that something else should have happened at that debate other than what happened, or that words should have been spoken other than those which were spoken.

All I'm saying is that the choice of "believe in" with reference to evolutionary theory is -- in this situation and in others -- significant.

There are, in fact, people in this country, at all levels of society, who see acceptance of evolutionary theory as a leap of faith rather than a recognition of reality. And we see this view reflected in language in many ways -- in the use of terms such as "evolutionism", for example.

The view that one "believes in" evolution rather than understanding it... that's merely another example.

[Piggy]

I find it terrifying that we have several serious candidates for President who don't "believe in" evolution. I guess it shouldn't since we have had a number of years with a person occupying the oval office who believes evolution is "one theory", with "God did it" being the other equivalent opposing theory.

Well, not exactly. Per George II, "on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth." For him, there is no doubt that "God did it" one way or another -- at least, that is his public rhetoric.

So in Dubya's world, God created the universe somehow -- and our scientific knowledge is not yet advanced enough to determine whether God did it by creating everything at once, or by setting it in motion and allowing it to evolve.

But the upshot's the same. If you accept that way of thinking, then ID (neo-creationism) should be taught in schools along with the hypothesis of evolution.

[Kerberos]

Well, not exactly. Per George II, "on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth." For him, there is no doubt that "God did it" one way or another -- at least, that is his public rhetoric.

So in Dubya's world, God created the universe somehow -- and our scientific knowledge is not yet advanced enough to determine whether God did it by creating everything at once, or by setting it in motion and allowing it to evolve.

But the upshot's the same. If you accept that way of thinking, then ID (neo-creationism) should be taught in schools along with the hypothesis of evolution.
I think you're wrong, you seem to be implying that belief means the same as faith, but both technically and in actual language it dies not. And you cannot apparently think of a better phrasing, something that is probably because this phrasing was in fact fairly neutral. The only alternative that I can think of would be "do you accept the fact that evolution is true or do you suffer from the delusion that creationism is a scientifically valid position" or words to that effect. Something that would hardly be more neutral.

The only thing that asking people if they "believe" in something implies is that it's possible that they don't, which is clearly the case, not that such a belief would be irrational or even open to serious debate.

[corplinx]

I find it terrifying that we have several serious candidates for President who don't "believe in" evolution.

Aren't you glad they asked a question the identified the woo quickly? On the dem side I'm not sure what they would ask, maybe something about hate crimes legislation.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't have a preference for facts, for events which have already occurred.

And I don't mean that to be flippant. The thing is, I'm not saying that something else should have happened at that debate other than what happened, or that words should have been spoken other than those which were spoken.

All I'm saying is that the choice of "believe in" with reference to evolutionary theory is -- in this situation and in others -- significant.

There are, in fact, people in this country, at all levels of society, who see acceptance of evolutionary theory as a leap of faith rather than a recognition of reality. And we see this view reflected in language in many ways -- in the use of terms such as "evolutionism", for example.

The view that one "believes in" evolution rather than understanding it... that's merely another example.


I really have no idea what you're saying. Didn't you criticize them for phrasing the question using the word "belief"?

[Piggy]

you seem to be implying that belief means the same as faith, but both technically and in actual language it does not.

This is actually precisely what I'm not saying.

"To believe" (or "to believe that") and "to believe in" are not the same at all. They are not equivalent, not interchangeable, and only "believe in" implies faith (of various sorts).

If I say, "I believe you" it means that I think what you're telling me is true.

If I say, "I believe in you", it means I have faith in you.

We consistently use "believe in" with reference to faith, in its many shades. So one believes in God as a matter of faith, or one believes in one's country as a matter of patriotism. One believes that it's likely to rain if the clouds continue to gather.

Suppose your spouse came home and said, "I know this sounds crazy, but I just saw Mick Jagger sipping a Diet Coke down at the park. He was dressed in work pants and had on dark glasses, but I swear it was him." And let's suppose you're a cop and y'all have been informed that Mick is making a surprise appearance at a local charity event, and were asked to keep it quiet, so it's reasonable that he might have snuck out for a walk.

You say to your wife, "I believe you",or "I believe that", or "I believe what you're saying".

You would not say "I believe in you" or "I believe in that".

So no, belief is not the same as faith. And that's why "Believing in" is not the same as "believing that".

And you cannot apparently think of a better phrasing, something that is probably because this phrasing was in fact fairly neutral.

Why should I come up with a "better phrasing"? I'm not saying that the phrasing does not accurately express some people's thoughts. I think it does accurately convey some people's thoughts. And that's the purpose of language. If that's what they mean, that's what they should say.

But no, the language is not neutral, for exactly the reasons I'm describing here. And that's because we're not dealing with an issue that people are generally neutral about. And this polarization of ideas is reflected in word choice, as it should be.

I would never ask anyone if they "believe in" evolution, because I am aware that evolution is a fact. My question would be if a person understands evolution or not.

But someone else, who is under the false impression that evolution is some unsupported hypothesis -- or worse, a leftist secularist conspiracy -- and that it requires a leap of faith to accept it as true... that person would naturally ask if others "believe in" evolution.

What I'm interesting in is what this choice of language shows us about how people view the topic. I have no interest whatsoever in suggesting that people should stop using words that accurately reflect their views.

[Piggy]

On the dem side I'm not sure what they would ask, maybe something about hate crimes legislation.

They were asked "Do you believe there is such a thing as a 'global war on terror'?" Another loaded question, but loaded in a different way.

[Kerberos]

This is actually precisely what I'm not saying.

"To believe" (or "to believe that") and "to believe in" are not the same at all. They are not equivalent, not interchangeable, and only "believe in" implies faith (of various sorts).

If I say, "I believe you" it means that I think what you're telling me is true.

f I say, "I believe in you", it means I have faith in you.

We consistently use "believe in" with reference to faith, in its many shades. So one believes in God as a matter of faith, or one believes in one's country as a matter of patriotism. One believes that it's likely to rain if the clouds continue to gather.

Suppose your spouse came home and said, "I know this sounds crazy, but I just saw Mick Jagger sipping a Diet Coke down at the park. He was dressed in work pants and had on dark glasses, but I swear it was him." And let's suppose you're a cop and y'all have been informed that Mick is making a surprise appearance at a local charity event, and were asked to keep it quiet, so it's reasonable that he might have snuck out for a walk.

You say to your wife, "I believe you",or "I believe that", or "I believe what you're saying".

You would not say "I believe in you" or "I believe in that".

So no, belief is not the same as faith. And that's why "Believing in" is not the same as "believing that".
You're right that there is a difference, but it is not what you say it is. you cannot "believe evolution" because evolution isn't actually saying anything to you. It is simply not true that the words "believe in" automatically implies "faith"



Why should I come up with a "better phrasing"? I'm not saying that the phrasing does not accurately express some people's thoughts. I think it does accurately convey some people's thoughts. And that's the purpose of language. If that's what they mean, that's what they should say.

But no, the language is not neutral, for exactly the reasons I'm describing here. And that's because we're not dealing with an issue that people are generally neutral about. And this polarization of ideas is reflected in word choice, as it should be.
You should come up with a better phrasing because you claim it's not neutral (or at least as neutral as anything can be). If you can't suggest a more phrasing that would be more neutral your criticisms falls a bit flat.

I would never ask anyone if they "believe in" evolution, because I am aware that evolution is a fact. My question would be if a person understands evolution or not.
Which totally fails to communicate the correct meaning. it's perfectly possible to understand something without believing that it is true. Had he asked them whether they "understood" evolution they'd all have answered yes, and the viewers would be none the wiser.

But someone else, who is under the false impression that evolution is some unsupported hypothesis -- or worse, a leftist secularist conspiracy -- and that it requires a leap of faith to accept it as true... that person would naturally ask if others "believe in" evolution.
As would somone who accepts the fact that evolution is a well documented fact.

What I'm interesting in is what this choice of language shows us about how people view the topic. I have no interest whatsoever in suggesting that people should stop using words that accurately reflect their views.
And as I have already pointed out it shows us nothing, but the fact that you can't take a GOP presidential candidate's belief in evolution for granted.

[Piggy]

I really have no idea what you're saying. Didn't you criticize them for phrasing the question using the word "belief"?

When we talk about words, we have to be very careful. "Believe" and "belief" are also not necessarily equivalent.

Change the form, you can change the meaning.

For instance, I can be working on my lawn mower, bang my knuckles, spill the oil, round the wrench, crack the plug, and finally "get disgusted" with it and decide to take it into the shop instead.

That would not mean, however, that I somehow find my lawnmower "digusting".

The words are related, they look very similar, but they're not always equivalent.

But a discussion of "belief", while interesting in its own right, is probably not relevant to the OP, so let's get back to something that is.

No, I'm not criticizing them for their phrasing -- I'm criticizing them for their ignorance or pandering (it's not clear which applies in each case).

When I said "I think it's improper to say we 'believe in' it", I was commenting on your statement regarding "people who hold [evolution] to be true", not the debate candidates.

What I'm saying, again, is that the choice of phrasing when one speaks of "believing in evolution" is not neutral, because it reflects an underlying assumption that evolutionary theory has not been demonstrated as accurately describing reality, that it's somehow scientifically controversial, that it requires at some point a leap of faith to "buy into it", so to speak.

Obviously, there are those in the panel who held that point of view. This being the case, the use of the term "believe in" appears to be a proper choice of words to express their thoughts.

The problem, of course, is that their thoughts are incorrect, and that it's a damn shame that wealthy, educated, powerful people running for president of the USA in 2007 should have that view, or promote it.

[Piggy]

You're right that there is a difference, but it is not what you say it is. you cannot "believe evolution" because evolution isn't actually saying anything to you.
I never said one could "believe evolution". Please, Kerberos, if you're going to dive in here, take the time to follow the thread.

The discussion of the relative meanings of the terms "believe (that)" and "believe in" got spun off from the discussion of the debate itself. It's significant to the topic, but you can't just go cutting and pasting around like that.

It is simply not true that the words "believe in" automatically implies "faith"
In fact, that is the case. The 2 are not linguistically interchangeable. "Believe in" implies some sort of faith (again, in the many shades of that term). That's how native speakers of American English use the terms today.

And when it comes to language, usage = meaning = usage.

You should come up with a better phrasing because you claim it's not neutral (or at least as neutral as anything can be). If you can't suggest a more phrasing that would be more neutral your criticisms falls a bit flat.
Sorry, but I've never said that "neutral" language should have been used at that time and place. In fact, I can't imagine any phrasing that would have been perceived as "neutral" in that context, given the varying degrees of understanding among the participants.

The purpose of language is to communicate. The participants in that conversation have differences of understanding on a point of fact. If that were not the case, the question would never have been asked in any form.

To ask, for instance, "Do you understand that the theory of evolution is an accurate model of biological development?" would have ticked off the candidates who do not actually have that understanding (or who perhaps claim not to). They would have considered it improper and condescending, as would their constituents who also see the issue that way.

I would never ask anyone if they "believe in" evolution, because I am aware that evolution is a fact. My question would be if a person understands evolution or not.
Which totally fails to communicate the correct meaning.
It would communicate my meaning correctly. I'm not saying "That's what I would have asked if I had been up there shooting the questions." If that's what I meant, that's what I would have said. But that's not what I said.

As I have already pointed out it shows us nothing, but the fact that you can't take a GOP presidential candidate's belief in evolution for granted.
I'd put it slightly differently, and say that you cannot take for granted that a GOP presidential candidate understands evolution. But essentially, yeah, we agree here. The questioner understood that, and so he asked the question (a loaded question) the way he did. The sad thing is what this tells us about the state of science education and understanding in America today.

[Kerberos]

I never said one could "believe evolution". Please, Kerberos, if you're going to dive in here, take the time to follow the thread.

The discussion of the relative meanings of the terms "believe (that)" and "believe in" got spun off from the discussion of the debate itself. It's significant to the topic, but you can't just go cutting and pasting around like that.
I know what the discussion sprung from and I did read the thread, I have no idea where you got the impression that I didn't.


In fact, that is the case. The 2 are not linguistically interchangeable. "Believe in" implies some sort of faith (again, in the many shades of that term). That's how native speakers of American English use the terms today.

And when it comes to language, usage = meaning = usage.
I'm well aware of how language works, and I'll grant that English isn't my native language. Still from my own fairly extensive experience with English, from the fact that dictionary.com supports my interpretation and from the fact that Dustin, who I believe is native, thinks the same, I'll say you're wrong. Believe in (or belief or believe) can imply faith but it does not necessarily do so.

In any case I think we've both said what we have to say on this matter and there's really no point in either of us repeating ourselves 20 times over, so if the fact that dictionary.com defines believe in as:

6. believe in,
a. to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.
b. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.

Of which a does not have the implications you claim, doesn't convince you I think we should just accept the fact that we aren't going to agree.

[Piggy]

Yeah, agreed. We've said what we have to say. The only thing I have to add, and then I'll shut up, is that it may be informative to keep your ears open and listen to how these words are actually used, which is something a dictionary won't tell you. (Dictionaries are useful to varying degrees for etymologies, spelling, syllabification, pronunciation, and such, a good way to familiarize yourself with new words -- but basing your ideas of what words actually communicate here-and-now on dictionary listings is usually a bad idea.)