There are issues over which reasonable people can differ.  Whether evolution is a real biological phenomenon is not one of them.  Choosing to disbelieve in evolution, to me, is not merely a litmus test for which side of the political spectrum a candidate occupies, it ought to be a disqualifying trait.  It reflects a fundamental, elected impenetrability to fact—not opinion, not argument, not interpretation—factual information.  This is a trait we cannot accept in a person who will occupy the highest elected office in the country.  This person is in a position to make decisions that will affect the entire populace of the country if not the world.  To remain ignorant (stupid and blind really) is not a legitimate life choice.  It just isn’t.  We cannot trust a person like this to observe facts.  We cannot trust them to make rational choices.  How can we give trust them to act as POTUS?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This for me is what is wrong with politics; politicians telling people what they want to hear, not caring about facts. Will she also accept doubt in court and so release prisoners, especially if DNA relevant to conviction as that backs up evolution to same degree.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mike, your comment was dead on.  It is unacceptable to vote for any politician that chooses religion over reality, and you managed to explain it in a way I hadn’t been able to do.  Thank you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

”...Evolution (is) a subject of scientific debate and… schools should teach both sides of the “argument”

Agreed! This is why my students learn the “other” side of the argument about spherical Earth geometry and so-called heliocentrism and the “science” of atomic *theory*. I think it’s also important we teach the debate over whether it *really* is the case that quantum theory is needed for your iPhone to work…or if it’s actually pixies after all…

All reasonable scientific debates. Teach the controversy! (Might not be much time left for actual science, but hey - who needs people to know science anyways? What harm has that done? Look at politicians - they don’t need science!)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I can not support a candidate who doesn’t believe in evolution. To me, it is a deal breaker.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

In all honesty, even if he did believe evolution and was against ID, I still wouldn’t vote for him.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Mike:
Thank you for so eloquently stating how I feel about these science-deniers.  With your permission I would like to use your post (citation given, of course).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Evolution is part of the advancement, progress, whether in scientific, as in biological

Videos Musicales

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m with CARDINALSMURF. Even if he hadn’t shown his redneck ass on evolution, I still wouldn’t vote for him. You’d have to put a gun to my head to make me vote for Sarah Palin and even then, I’d have to think about it! Perry isn’t any better, he’s male though, so he stands a better chance than either Palin or Bachmann which makes him all the scarier.

Richard is absolutely correct. I am glad that he is getting more openly hostile in his postings because that gets them read to a higher degree (hopefully). Although one criticism, he shouldn’t use so many big words. Rick Perry probably won’t bother to get out his dictionary so he can understand what Richard wrote.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@dmccrossen
please feel free to repeat my comment wherever you like.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.