<p>Oh I think “guided by a divine being” could be interpreted a number of ways. Couldn’t God’s guidance consist of saying “Let there be light!” (or a Big Bang) and then sitting back to watch the fireworks? So that we all have free will and all of that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can quite seriously say that Olbermann, while most definitely partisan, is not a hack. Matthews, otoh, is a hack regardless of his partisanship.</p>
<p>Ok, IrishMom, fair enough! I’ve dealt with Olbermann professionally in years past and do think he’s a hack, but I’m bringing personal opinion to bear.</p>
<p>Actually, the thing that amazes me is why a person’s beliefs regarding evolution has anything to do with one’s ability to be president. To condemn that belief as a justification to accuse the person as being “anti-science” just doesn’t follow logically - and only exposes the people who make such accusations as being mind-numbing dull.</p>
<p>Asking a question about one’s beliefs in evolution as if the answer gives some insight into a person’s qualification for being president makes just as much sense as asking if they believed going out in the cold without a coat will cause you to get a cold. While the answer to such a question may not be scientifically accurate, it amounts to a big “who cares” when it comes to being president. </p>
<p>If you want to judge a person’s views on science, why not ask more pertinent questions concerning their views on funding science for such things as cancer research or global warming/new forms of energy? Why delve into an area that has absolutely no impact on where we go in the future?</p>
<p>“I think “guided by a divine being” could be interpreted a number of ways. Couldn’t God’s guidance consist of saying “Let there be light!” (or a Big Bang) and then sitting back to watch the fireworks? So that we all have free will and all of that?”</p>
<p>Oh, if it were that simple. ID proponents do not accept the above as their belief system. And, it’s certainly not what is meant by the term creationist.</p>
<p>“Actually, the thing that amazes me is why a person’s beliefs regarding evolution has anything to do with one’s ability to be president. To condemn that belief as a justification to accuse the person as being “anti-science” just doesn’t follow logically - and only exposes the people who make such accusations as being mind-numbing dull.”</p>
<p>Oh, FF, I disagree. It goes to the ability of the person to disregard scientific evidence that disagrees with his/her fundamentalist religious beliefs - not the kind of person I want sitting in the oval office.</p>
<p>While Matthews may have difficulty not allowing his personal bias to “show” - I don’t think that makes him a “hack”. Olberman, on the other hand, is most definitely a “hack”. It made for very entertaining sports commentary - but regarding politics, please!</p>
<p>Can you come up with a concrete example of where one’s disbelief in evolution would have any bearing one’s views towards science as it might be used for our progress? Are there any fundamentalists beliefs that might impact cancer research or research on alternative energy or any forward-looking research?</p>
<p>“Can you come up with a concrete example of where one’s disbelief in evolution would have any bearing one’s views towards science as it might be used for our progress? Are there any fundamentalists beliefs that might impact cancer research or research on alternative energy or any forward-looking research?”</p>
<p>As a matter of fact, yes. One’s disbelief in evolution could (not would - there is a difference) influence one’s views/decisions - not only on cancer research - but also epidemiology and communicable disease strategies, presription drug policies, etc. </p>
<p>But, I think this is a rather narrow minded view. Much more important, to me and others concerned, is the bigger picture. Do we really want someone in the nation’s highest office who willingly ignores scientific evidence that contradicts his/her fundamentalist religious beliefs? Or, just as important an issue, someone willing to ignore such evidence to pander to those with such beliefs.</p>
<p>Partisanship does not, in my opinion, equal hackery. Matthews is most certainly a hack - and I remember his swooning over Bush’s codpiece when Bush announced “Mission Accomplished”, so I disagree that he is overly biased in favor of the Democrats.</p>
<p>“While Matthews may have difficulty not allowing his personal bias to “show” - I don’t think that makes him a “hack”. Olberman, on the other hand, is most definitely a “hack”. It made for very entertaining sports commentary - but regarding politics, please!”</p>
<p>That’s not why I think Matthews is a hack. I think he’s a hack because he made an important occasion all about him and his stereotypes and opinions.</p>
<p>“so I disagree that he is overly biased in favor of the Democrats.”</p>
<p>He was a Tip O’Neill staffer for years. He is a liberal democrat, which is fine, but he was a horse’s backside last night, which is not. The issue for me was in the choice of questions. He asked questions that HE wanted answers to, not necessarily questions that the republican base would have wanted answered.</p>
<p>"One’s disbelief in evolution could (not would - there is a difference) influence one’s views/decisions - not only on cancer research - but also epidemiology and communicable disease strategies, presription drug policies, etc. "</p>
<p>I’m not sure how you came up with these possibilities and I respectfully submit that you may be projecting things that concern you where they haven’t yet been placed. I’m a conservative but not a member of the religious right and creationism and intelligent design are completely foreign to me and my experience, so I kind of stay away from them because I don’t want to project.</p>
<p>Reflectivemom is quite correct. In treating communicable disease, one has to accept that bacteria and viruses, like any replicating organism, evolve. That’s why for example the protocol for the use of antibiotics has been updated; doctors now insist that patients finish their pills to prevent the emergence of resistent bugs. And that’s just one example.</p>
<p>
But the question, if I understand it correctly, was not “Do you believe in Intelligent Design?” I for one would be very worried if we had a creationist as president. I don’t think it’s a bad question even if the Republican base doesn’t think so. There’s a huge moderate population that probably ultimately decides the fate of most elections.</p>
<p>“I don’t think it’s a bad question even if the Republican base doesn’t think so.”</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>I expect a politician who aspires to the highest office in the country to be reasonably well informed, able to separate science from fairy tales, and not to blatantly lie about his beliefs for political gain. I think that a would-be president who states that he doesn’t believe in evolution fails that test. I don’t need to link that particular bit of ignorance - willful or otherwise - to a specific legislative issue to feel that it’s a failing grade in and of itself. If the politician actually doesn’t believe in evolution either he is woefully uneducated or he has elected not to accept a well researched scientific explanation for natural events because he simply doesn’t want to, and is able to suspend his power of reasoning at will for whatever reason. The only alternative that I see is that he understands the theory but chooses to denounce it for base political reasons. None of those explanations for claiming not to believe in evolution - in 2007 - is acceptable to me. I expect better.</p>
<p>I listened, rather than watched, but I thought that Giuliani had the worst night. After the debates, I think that the most formidable opponent for the Dems would be Romney. He came across as “presidential,” whatever that means.</p>
<p>I thought that Tommy Thompson had the best plan for Iraq (setting up 15 “state” governments, sharing oil revenues three ways, looking at a solution that involves all of the mideast, rather than just Iraq). Of course, he blew it later trying to out-Reagan the other Reagan-wannabees.</p>
<p>I think the Republicans’ downfall will be to try to match positions with their current base (evangelical, creationist, extreme right), but that is less than 30% of the US population.</p>
<p>I did think it was telling that everyone was backing away from GWB.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, there are some pretty well-known divisions within “the Republican base”, including fissures among “values” conservatives, religious conservatives, economic conservatives, “establishment” conservatives, and libertarians. A candidate’s willingness to state publicly that he doesn’t believe in evolution provides a valuable indicator of where he is in that array. I think it was a good idea to ask the question directly of everyone.</p>
<p>“A candidate’s willingness to state publicly that he doesn’t believe in evolution provides a valuable indicator of where he is in that array. I think it was a good idea to ask the question directly of everyone.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure how that specific reference came back to me. I didn’t refer to the evolution issue in any way except to explain that I’m not familiar enough with intelligent design or creationism to have anything to say about that. There was more to the debate than the one issue and the evolution question was not what I was referring to at all. If you go back to my original post about the questions, I was more referring to what wasn’t emphasized than what was – although I was disappointed in that, as well.</p>