% of Democrat and Republican Senators that deny Evolution?

Bar debate was struck up last night with a conservative friend saying there was 4 or 5 Republican Senators that publicly deny the Theory of Evolution, tops.

Further, Democratic senators aren’t much better.

If he’s incorrect please help me prove him wrong.

Among current Senators: Vitter, Brownback, Inhofe (link), for starters. Santorum, O’Donnell, and Angle all lost; Helms and Thurmond are dead. All R’s, no D’s.

But remember that what a pol says and what he believes, if anything, normally do not map one for one.

McCain said he believed in evolution during one of the '08 debates, so there’s one for the pro-evolution count.

But there’s the thing. Anyone who says they believe in evolution doesn’t know what the hell it is. It’s like saying I believe in math, or I believe in ice cream.
You know it or you don’t. When Christine O’Donell asked why don’t monkeys turn into humans, she didn’t know what it was either. :smiley:

McCain equivocated on “intelligent design” during the campaign, though.

Meh, he was responding to the wording of the questioner. I don’t think anyone really wanted him to give a ten minute spiel on epistemology and what it means to “believe” something in respect to the scientific method in response to a yes or no question.

And in the D column, I think Mark Pryor said he was a Young Earth Creationist in Bill Mahers movie.

Pryor straddled too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88l5ql_FQ
In the Republican debates, at least 3 Repubs running for president said they did not believe in evolution.

Thurmond was a former Democrat.

Does that somehow make you feel better?

No I was just stating the facts.

This again? Yes, he was. And when the Democratic party decided that support for civil rights was more important than appeasing the dinosaurs in the South, Thurmond (and many other Southern Dems) decided to change their party instead of their minds. Just as Robert Byrd decided to change his mind instead of his party.

There is no such thing as a bright-line connection between the Democratic Party pre-60s and the Democratic Party post-60s as far as civil rights and race are concerned. Both modern parties have flip-flopped on that subject.

he was a Dixiecrat.

No, the Civil Rights are now a settled issue, not flip-flopped.

Yes, that’s why Republican efforts to suppress minority voting have ceased completely, I’m sure.

Yes, that’s why hooded men still beat up blacks who try to vote.

Is that all civil rights are? Not being attacked by hooded men while voting? Well then I agree. It is a settled matter.

These days they prefer to use cops for intimidation (who don’t need to wear hoods while they beat or kill black people), and redraw election districts to split the black vote.

The minorities have been given all possible legal support. Other than coddling them, they’re on their own now. And statistics show, many minorities (such as Asiatics) are even more successful than WASPs and other whites.

So you support gerrymandering just to ensure majority-black districts? How about majority-vegetarian districts? Or majority-Scientologist districts. (Both are possible considering there are 435 House seats).

:rolleyes: Please. There’s plenty of systematic discrimination against them still.

Do you support gerrymandering to ensure blacks have no political power? Yes, of course you do.