Posted on 05/24/2007 10:39:18 PM PDT by neverdem
Crucial presidential debates are coming soon. For Republicans they can be a problem, especially when it comes to evolution. Often reporters ask questions designed to do irreparable harm to conservative candidates. That was exactly the intent of the evolution question in the first GOP candidate forum on MSNBC on May 3.
--snip--
Here's what I believe the best answer would have been to the evolution trap:
"I can't answer until I understand your question. Are you asking about microevolution or macroevolution?"
This forces an airing of the...
--snip--
"Well, if you mean microevolution, where an organism adapts to its environment with the flexibility already built into its existing DNA, then yes I believe in that; we see it every day in nature. But if you mean macroevolution, where mutations stack on one another to create entirely new organ systems and transform one species into a totally different species, then I, along with many well-credentialed scientists, have serious problems with that theory."
--snip--
And there are scientists who express such concerns. Models like the doctrine of irreducible complexity simply explain that certain organs like the eye require dozens of different component parts, each made of millions or billions of complex cells, all working together to function. It argues such organs cannot evolve over time because even if such an organ is 99% complete, it still has 0% function, and thus does not do anything to help the species. This model suggests organs must be entirely present and perfectly placed together or they do not work. Modern theories of macroevolution have no explanation for how such organs can come about. Regardless of what you believe, it's a fair point for a rational person to make and that does not rely on any religious belief. It's a scientific objection, not a religious one.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Good read...in the NY Sun?
btt
Sophistry on display.
“Microevolution” is a term unknown to science.
The Evolution question is an unfair one at best as the theory has a great many components. It is not just one entity but many and the many do not necessarily make the one. Natural selection, macroevolution, to which specific part of evolution is the question intended? What has any of it to do with a political debate? I suppose the man from monkey is the aspect most think of when evolution is discussed. The evolution chart of man has more to do with creative illustrators than empirical scientific fact. Yet, in a political forum the topic is best left alone because it always comes down to religion vs religion, as evolution much like global warming has become a religion,and so much GIGO in both, so why even bring it up in a political debate?
Too smart.
Better answer would be “that’s not a public policy question and hence a distraction to the real debate.
... you can follow up with.
“But if you want to debate soemthing regarding scientific theories, what is your opinion of the Reimann Hypothesis? Do you think P = NP? and is it wrong to teach the Bohr model of the atom to high schoolers, knowing it is flawed? I await your answer on these!”
Right. This is solely a liberal question designed to smoke out the “Fundies versus the rest of us”.
You might want to let them know about that at Berkeley.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVMicroevolution.shtml
What's wrong with the NY Sun? Don't you recognize Ken Blackwell? I wish it had the NY Times' resources.
Please elaborate.
The author explained why at the beginning of this OpEd. The secularist left insists on it. They believe it shows themselves to be informed and the right as ignorant.
In politics it can have some rather deep and sweeping ramifications - for example, Nazi officers trying to help Darwin along by eliminating those they deem less fit for survival. Some would say this has modern application in the quest for embryonic stem cell research as well, to wit, "Since there is no God, since therefore there is no meaning, since therefore we're an accident, what's the big deal?"
(Naturally, seldom considered are the basis of the very truth axioms on which the structure of science itself rests.)
If you don't believe in evolution just tell people, "I'm a person of faith and my religious beliefs do not allow me to accept the theory of evolution." 90% of us can accept that as a reasonable answer.
Better answer would be “that’s not a public policy question and hence a distraction to the real debate.
Except that the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools has been a public policy question for almost a century. It's a pity that it was wrapped around the axle with the grades K - 12 curricula.
As theory, it's not that bad until it conflicts with a literal interpretation of someone's Bible. Teaching it should have been left to colleges and universities, and you wouldn't have all this grief. As a practical matter, it doesn't do much good except offer an explanation for various disciplines of science.
The left has made such a mess of public education, with the theory of evolution they can distract from all the harm they have caused to the rest of basic education in grades K - 12. We have folks who don't understand diddly squat voting on Election Day, not to mention the demented, a personal observational from working at a nursing home.
The real debate is the poor quality of our schools, and the Democrats’ failure to allow accountability, choice, metrics, and high standards in the education system.
I think any answer to the question of school curriculum should refocus on those key points.
Fighting over one topic, when we have so many areas of mis-guided pedagogy is a travesty.
How do you know that?
Because if I remember right something like 90% of Americans profess to have a belief in God. Now of course that doesn’t mean that 90% of Americans reject evolution, but it does mean that we are open to the belief in a higher power that directs the universe and are at least somewhat likely to accept someone else’s mainstream religious views.
Yes I read that I suppose I should have been more clear. I understand the sinister motives behind leftists wanting the question asked. The left simply wants the opportunity to brand the opposition as knuckle-dragging, flat-earth types or either get them at odds with their base. I have no misconceptions at all as to why they would want the question asked. The point of my question was to express my personal view and that, for me at least, the answer has little significance in choosing a candidate for political office. I have less concern with their views on how things came to be and more on what they intend doing with things now that they are. If as a candidate I even answered the question it would be in this way. It’s one of those questions like “are you a compassionate conservative?” that is not deserving of an answer. The question assumes conservatives are somewhat other than compassionate, and is an affront especially since the facts show conservatives are more charitable than liberals. I agree with the author in forcing the person asking the question to state with specificity what he/means by evolution. Not too much to ask since Clinton isn’t quite sure what the meaning of is...........is. :)
heh, I like your follow up question. They would blow a headpipe trying to dig out of that one unscathed. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.