Why is it important that a politician believe the ToE?

[cali]

There's only one reason. As this Forbes article points out:

The Un-asked Question: do you believe that evolution should be taught in public schools, and that it should be presented as the only explanation for how species arose?

That's always what it's about. Always.

The author of the Forbes article goes on to say:

This question has only one right answer, as any biologist worthy of the name knows. Evolution is the foundation of all of modern biology, genetics, infectious disease research, you name it.

And this:

President Obama also supports evolution, and opposes teaching creationism in the science classroom.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/10/08/president-obama-and-republican-challenger-mitt-romney-talk-science/

In his own words:

A: “I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state.

But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.“

While I disagree with Obama a bit (obviously, I wouldn’t put faith on equal footing with science), his attitude is pretty good, and for a politician running for President it’s phenomenal. Clinton was clear on this issue as well. And both are far, far better than the mealy-mouthed equivocating McCain made on this topic.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/04/01/obama-on-evolution/



Now, Marco Rubio:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

<snip>

People who suggest that we teach children competing theories are using a sophisticated code to further the forces of creationism. It’s an attempt to teach “intelligent design,” by doing what clever creationists call “teaching the controversy.” (Intelligent design is a school of thought that suggests that life is too complex to be ascribed to evolution and therefore that animals must have been created by a supernatural “designer.” There is no evidence and no theory that could be interpreted as scientific proof.) George W. Bush addressed intelligent design just once in public, saying that he believed “both sides ought to be properly taught.” Rubio seems to agree. In a society desperate for scientific literacy among its leaders, that is a terrible shame.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/marco-rubio-needs-evolution.html#ixzz2CtEcT5wr


Back to President Obama who said this some years ago:

Campbell Brown: If one of your daughters asked you — and maybe they already have — “Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

Barack Obama: I’m trying to remember if we’ve had this conversation. What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it — it may not be 24-hour days. And that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and that I think is a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. You know, my belief is that the story the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live, that that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible? That, you know, I don’t presume to know.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/21/obama_once_gave_rubio_like_answer_on_earths_age/singleton/

But again he stressed that only the ToE should be taught in science classses. (3:42 on the video, which the

It's a false equivalency to claim that Rubio and the President are saying the same thing. They aren't. It may appear so to the superficial reader or those who want to believe that they hold the same position, but that's bullshit. When it comes to translating into policy- and that's the top, bottom and middle line- the two hold opposite opinions. and I'd like to note that in the crap Salon article, the author prints the president's comments on the creation of the world and leaves out his comments on evolution being the only theory that should be taught in schools.

[SidDithers]

1. DU rec...nt

Sid

[longship]

2. I am not a NOMA fan.

NOMA is non-overlapping magisteria, that states that science and religion do not overlap in principle. It was first stated by Harvard biologist Stephen J. Gould.

My objection is based on the undeniable fact that religion will eternally cross the line, sticking their ideological fingers into domains which are clearly scientific. If NOMA exists, it certainly does not exist in practice, especially with regards to many religious people.

One data point in favor of this rejection is that 46% of the US public believe that dinosaurs lived beside humans. They believe this because their pastors tell they will go to Hell if they deny it. That is one hell of an overlap. NOMA is falsified.

QED.

Sorry, Stephen. Many of today's secularists are with me on this.

[cthulu2016]

4. I agree

The idea that science does not refute religion is a terrible insult to religion.

A religion that makes no claim of real-world phenomena—present or past—at odds with natural laws is not much of a religion. It's just some sort of half-baked non-experimental science.

The domain of science is the real world.

How could religion not impinge on that?

It is a peace treaty proposal, on atrocious terms, rather than an observation about reality.

(Gould was a pretty sloppy thinker all around, truth be told.)

[longship]

5. Except when it came to snails...

Gould's expertease.

[cali]

3. kick for clarity.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. A very useful response to MadHound's nonsense

It was a disgraceful OP, and truly deserves this very public rejoinder.