weasel words
No, it just means you’re unwilling to think critically and objectively. We’ve had enough of that kind of President.
Indeed. The bit at the end about “descended from primates” belies his actual opinion on the matter. I did a quick search on the NY Times site for the Op-Ed and didn’t find it…my fault, perhaps it was another newspaper (I swear I read it at some point). However, I did find this transcript in which the following can be found (about 3/4 to the end):
So, while he seems to make the distinction between human evolution and abiogenesis in his dissembling, he actually doesn’t.
Well here’s one of his latest statements:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
I don’t care much for the whole “abortion=holocaust” idea (being both pro-choice and having seen where branches of my family tree were hacked off during the big-H-Holocaust) but he’s entitled to his moral views.
This next bit, however, makes me question whether he really understands the principle of separation of church and state:
“Huckabee also spoke adamantly of the need for conservative lawmakers to show no compromise on fighting for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman. “I’m very tired of hearing people who are unwilling to change the constitution, but seem more than willing to change the holy word of God as it relates to the definition of marriage,” he said.”
I’m reading that as he is in favor of a constitutional amendment to implement what he thinks is “…the holy word of God…” which makes me question whether he would actually govern lawfully.
Maybe he thought they were asking him if he had any Anglican bigwigs in his family tree.
That’s not nearly as weasely
He must have forgotten that humans are primates
And yet if I said an atheist is unfit to hold elected office (which I don’t believe), this board would scream holy hell.
Of course, as private citizens, we aren’t held to the “no religious test” clause of the Constitution & can choose to vote for/against someone for whatever reason we please.
One can be deeply religious, believe in evolution and not be a strict creationist, so “atheist” isn’t the opposite of “creationist”.
Somebody who is a devoted YEC/ID type makes me question their ability to think logically and that’s a cause for concern when we’re talking about the highest office in the land. If Barack Obama came out and said that he’s a Flat Earther, no matter what other positions he has I’d think several times about voting for the man.
As far as somebody’s moral values go, I am far more concerned about what they are than where they are derived from. For example I would find Huckabee’s stance on a constitutional amendment regarding marriage to be equally disturbing whether he came by it from Mormonism, Confucionism or FSMism.
If it were somehow demonstrable, I’d be willing to wager that very few people come to accept the theory of evolution on the basis of their own logical thought. Most of us are never presented with all of the evidence and the various counter arguments and explanations in such a way that we’re capable of making logical decisions wrt to it even if we were someone capable of making logical decisions [which I don’t think is a universal skill].
I didn’t say “theist,” I said “creationist” or to put it more clearly, anyone who rejects evolution (which I would distinguish from a belief that God created the universe), i.e. anyone who rejects proven facts. It’s not a religious test, it’s a science test.
I don’t see why things like character and personality are such a big deal in a Presidential candidate. I’m never going to meet the guy so why do I care if he’s somebody I’d enjoy having a beer with? All I want from a President is competance and intelligence. I’m even willing to meet a candidate halfway on integrity - I don’t care what he actually believes in as long as his actions are acceptable. He can be faking it for my vote but I’m willing to let him.
Well we’re kind of getting offtrack at this point. I don’t know the exact numbers but there have been thousands of scientists in hundreds of fields publishing jillions of research papers for more than 150 years, relating to evolution, and it ain’t been tossed out in favor of anything better so far. I admit that in my year of high school biology we didn’t review every single one of those pieces of evidence, but the fact of the matter is that all of the reviewing has been done and our educational system presents us with the theory that has survived all those years, which happens to be evolution. We did cover some alternate ideas, but mostly showing one or two examples of “Why that idea doesn’t work” (the same way that the earth-centered theory of the solar system is discussed).
And the YEC/ID crowd certainly has plenty of opportunity to have their theories checked and discussed and be confronted with opposing evidence, they just refuse to accept it.
There are other examples - I’m sure that no one person has seen every piece of evidence related to the destruction of the WTC on 9/11, or all the evidence that the Apollo flights landed on the moon, but wouldn’t you find someone who doesn’t accept the actual explanations of what went on (in the face of tons of evidence) to be somewhat lacking in the rational thought department?
Do we know that Huckabee considers himself a YEC? And btw, YEC is a totally different critter than ID. An ID-er can be just as much an Old-Earther or even a Theistic Evolutionist (or Evolutionary Creationist, which I like to call myself sometimes to piss both extremes off).
He accepted gifts from a wealthy Arkansan by the name of Osborne and denied that doing so even appeared to be wrong. He vetoed an insurance bill designed to protect consumers because it contained the phrase “Acts of God”. He accepted gifts for the Governor’s Mansion and took them as his own when he left office. He ridiculed those wishing to raise the Arkansas minimum wage without explanation, sarcastically asking, “When don’t we make it $20.00 an hour?” Joked about being in a concentration camp and did not apologize when it became obvious that he had offended many people.
That kind?
Like 42 of them?
This thread isn’t really about whether he would make a good candidate (or at least, that isn’t what the OP was asking). But now that’s its been hijacked…you’re right that character doesn’t matter so long as a candidate’s actions are always what he says they are going to be. Of course, that is a part of character so you’ve really just defeated a strawman.
I disagree. Suppose you have a candidate who hates black people and thinks they’re inferior to white people. But he realizes that racism will cost him votes in modern America. So he pretends to believe black people are equal and treats black people as equal just so he can hold office. So now you have a guy who’s not only a racist but a liar as well. A guy who’s openly racist and acts on his beliefs actually has more real character. But if I had to make a choice between the two, I’d rather have the closeted racist in office.
But you didn’t address my point. You said you don’t care what they think, only what they do. That’s fine. But the only way you know whether to vote for such a guy in the first place is based on what he says in the campaign. You’re assuming he will do what he says in the campaign, which is what we often call character.
Actually, I don’t think that’s enough evidence to say that someone lacks in the “rational thought department.”
I don’t think that humans are primarily or fundamentally rational actors.
I have several very, very intelligent and well lettered friends who do an excellent job of rational problem solving on a daily and professional basis, but who have some wacky beliefs.
They don’t hold these beliefs because they lack the ability for rational thought, but in spite of it.