<p>Edge:</a> SCIENCE AND THE CANDIDATES By Lawrence M. Krauss</p>
<p>well any one of them that has no issues with teaching "intelligent design" is obviouslly NOT GOOD for science....</p>
<p>Wow, that Huckabee response of "I'm not writing a science book, so my beliefs on evolution don't matter" (paraphrased) just made me lose a TON of respect for him.</p>
<p>He says that on the one hand, while on the other touting his religion widely. Why should his religion matter? He's not running for priest-in-chief, is he?</p>
<p>No, his religion and his beliefs on evolution matter because they give insight into how his mind works; whether he is capable of critically and rationally assessing factual information and coming to a reasonable conclusion, or whether he is more apt to rely on faith (can you tell I'm biased here? ;)).</p>
<p>For the record, I think any candidate who does not believe evolution is valid is lacking critical faculties necessary in a President.</p>
<p>1of42,</p>
<p>Man, that knocks out a lot of American presidential candidates each campaign.</p>
<p>I know. Truly sad, isn't it?</p>
<p>"For the record, I think any candidate who does not believe evolution is valid is lacking critical faculties necessary in a President."</p>
<p>How about someone who is open to the possibility of the evolutionary stages but is also open to the notion that each of these were a product of a higher being who is in charge of the process?</p>
<p>Because GOD is not science, it is a FAITH System...and when teaching science, you can't just go, well can't figure it out, so the Flying Spaghetti Monster must have done it.....</p>
<p>Open to the notion that Zeus made the eyeball? okey dokey</p>
<p>
[quote]
How about someone who is open to the possibility of the evolutionary stages but is also open to the notion that each of these were a product of a higher being who is in charge of the process?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unless you can prove it, no! How can we lead the world in science when we have people in such denial of reality?</p>
<p>IMO, any of the main tier of Democrats would probably be good for science. However, I think Edwards would be the best for all social programs in general because that seems to be his forte and what he is focusing on.</p>
<p>
How about someone who is open to the possibility of the evolutionary stages but is also open to the notion that each of these were a product of a higher being who is in charge of the process?
</p>
<p>Metaphysical issues and factual issues are very different. I don't think someone who has a metaphysical disagreement about causation (which is essentially what you're posting here) is unqualified - I think that a candidate who is so able to ignore fact in favor of faith is unqualified. The two are very different, just as "I don't believe in evolution" and "I believe evolution may be caused by an intelligent being" are very different.</p>
<p>While I'll still maintain that until proof is provided for any theistic metaphysical assertions, they are meaningless, placating drivel, such metaphysical stupidity does not make one unqualified, since the President isn't metaphysical philosopher-in-chief. If he/she were, my response might be different.</p>
<p>I'm reminded of when Ronald Reagan expressed sympathy for astrology - wasn't willing to say whether it had merit or not. </p>
<p>Pretty sad when the leader of the free wolrd can't decide between scientific rationality and Babylonian mysticism.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>How about someone who is open to the possibility of the evolutionary stages but is also open to the notion that each of these were a product of a higher being who is in charge of the process?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>That's a perfectly valid opinon, but it's just not a scientific one. It a religious view. Scientifically, it's completely unsatisfying because it explains NOTHING. Saying "God did it" is easy. It can be invoked for any mystery, but doing so does absolutely nothing to solve the mystery.</p>
<p>
[quote]
>>How about someone who is open to the possibility of the evolutionary stages but is also open to the notion that each of these were a product of a higher being who is in charge of the process?<<</p>
<p>That's a perfectly valid opinon, but it's just not a scientific one. It a religious view. Scientifically, it's completely unsatisfying because it explains NOTHING. Saying "God did it" is easy. It can be invoked for any mystery, but doing so does absolutely nothing to solve the mystery.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would have much more respect for someone who recognizes the scientific basis for evolution, while maintaining an open mind as to who or what may have set everything in motion, than for someone who adamantly says 'There is no God because science has not yet proven the existence of God.'</p>
<p>That is just as narrow-minded and dogmatic as saying there definitely is a God. Remember, science can be dogmatic too! Science has not yet proven everything there is to know! There are still MANY mysteries (perhaps even astrology!) that may one day be solved, but just aren't proven by science YET. To think that science has ALL the answers is just as foolish as dismissing science altogether, as Huckabee does.</p>
<p>Who has seen the movie What the Bleep? There is quite an overlap in quantum physics and metaphysics.</p>
<p>I have! Yes, it's awesome! Science is finally BEGINNING to catch up with metaphysics. Anyone who disregards the possibility of esoterica like astrology having a basis in science is ignorant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would have much more respect for someone who recognizes the scientific basis for evolution, while maintaining an open mind as to who or what may have set everything in motion, than for someone who adamantly says 'There is no God because science has not yet proven the existence of God.'</p>
<p>That is just as narrow-minded and dogmatic as saying there definitely is a God. Remember, science can be dogmatic too! Science has not yet proven everything there is to know! There are still MANY mysteries (perhaps even astrology!) that may one day be solved, but just aren't proven by science YET. To think that science has ALL the answers is just as foolish as dismissing science altogether, as Huckabee does.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very well said.</p>
<p>ff: thanks. Nice to see we agree occasionally!</p>
<p>1of42: What is your definition of metaphysics?</p>
<p>Issues and theories that transcend physical being, or reality. In this case, the question of whether or not a God exists is irrelevant to physical reality; anyone with half a brain knows that things are as they are, and whether or not a God created them is irrelevant to that (unless someone can find some kind of legitimate proof that the question is more than academic, in which case it becomes a very different and much more serious issue - but since so far no one has, I will leave that possibility aside).</p>
<p>
I would have much more respect for someone who recognizes the scientific basis for evolution, while maintaining an open mind as to who or what may have set everything in motion, than for someone who adamantly says 'There is no God because science has not yet proven the existence of God.'</p>
<p>That is just as narrow-minded and dogmatic as saying there definitely is a God. Remember, science can be dogmatic too! Science has not yet proven everything there is to know! There are still MANY mysteries (perhaps even astrology!) that may one day be solved, but just aren't proven by science YET. To think that science has ALL the answers is just as foolish as dismissing science altogether, as Huckabee does.
</p>
<p>I suspect that I am included in this indictment of "dogmatism". ;)</p>
<p>I just want to point out that I am not saying that there is no God because science has not proven it. Rather, I am saying that until science or some other rational method does prove it, postulating whether or not there is a God is a matter of pure faith and imagination. Yes, there could be a God, but there could be any number of different things that we have no strong evidence for - I see no compelling reason whatsoever to give the concept of a God more time than any of those merely because it's a popular one.</p>
<p>"In this case, the question of whether or not a God exists is irrelevant to physical reality; anyone with half a brain knows that things are as they are, and whether or not a God created them is irrelevant to that"</p>
<p>How do you know that the existence of God or whether God was the force behind is irrelevant to to what things are? Wouldn't it make sense that for God to be able to create the universe (using whatever means He used), that He also would be behind all of the scientific laws that define what you are referring to as physical reality?</p>
<p>Anytime, people start mixing religion with science, they stop making sense. If I follow the logic that God exists because it can't be proven that he doesn't then I could say that the Loch Ness monster, UFOs and the abominable snowman exist because it can't be proven that they don't. That is not a good enough basis to put them in science books. Intelligent people should be able to compartmenatlize - faith and science don't need to mix.</p>
<p>" If I follow the logic that God exists because it can't be proven that he doesn't"</p>
<p>I think you better do some research on religious beliefs. I am not aware of anyone saying that the absence of a negative proof implies that there is a God.</p>
<p>"faith and science don't need to mix."</p>
<p>But there is no rational reason why they NEED to be separate either.</p>