Posted on 06/01/2007 10:57:28 AM PDT by truthfinder9
He does a fairly good job explaining the issue, which is unusual for a politician. I'm happy he pointed out the problem of "atheistic theology posing as science." It's usually the evolutionists trying to insert religion, not design scientists.
*****
IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.
The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Some of us just don’t believe in “Evolutionism”.
GET OVER IT, already!
Whether or not we believe in Evolutionism has NO EFFECT on our ability to PERFORM OUR JOBS!
I am an engineer.
Once upon a time I was an evolutionist.
Now I am a creationist.
My ability to do my job was unaffected.
If my job performance was affected at all, it was probably affected for the better, since the Bible tells me to do my job diligently, as if I was doing it for God Himself and to live peaceably with all men as much as is possible.
To whom are you directing your loud rant-- Brownback? "Evolutionists"? The (unknown?) entity who raised the question at the debate?
If my job performance was affected at all, it was probably affected for the better
Therefore, maybe it is a valid question, after all.
GET OVER IT, already!
Some of us accept (not "believe in") the theory of evolution because of the massive amounts of evidence, and how well that evidence explained is by the theory.
I don’t really see why it matters how anyone believes. It won’t change what or how things happen.
Actually, Brownback has made an impressive statement. At least to me.
No, a more reasonable reading of the question would be that its purpose was to check judgment. It was a trap to see who could not resist communicating something which would make their candidacy a joke.
Based upon scientific accumulation of physical evidence, evolution is a reasonable theory to explain that evidence. Do we have all the evidence regarding this theory? No. Does this theory require a disbelief in God? No. Will most people accept a theory based upon someone's religious beliefs and little physical evidence? Not likely. Good judgment dictates that a wise candidate would not respond to that question.
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.