NationStates Jolt Archive

The poll *should* say it all...

Theres only been two votes so far....

Voting is stupid, why do it at all.

It depends on what kind of role they have. If they don't really have anything to do with science or education, I don't really care; they can be ignorant all they want as long as it doesn't affect me. But if they're in a position that will give them power over scientific research or education, I am strongly disinclined to vote for a creationist unless their other policies are good enough to justify the potential risk.

The last thing we need is another war on scientific integrity like the one waged by Bush and the Republican congress.

depends more on there stances really if some creationist wanted to bring the rainbow of ID to school then no there a prick unfit for office on the flip-side (:cool:) if some evolution extremist wanted to force private schools to teach evolution...I wouldn't know what to think :s

either way if they keep there views to themselves there both fine so long as everything else is awesome

Voices... voices... voices... voices... voices... voices...

The voices, always go with the voices.

Voting is stupid, why do it at all.

it gives us a legitimate reason to hate the general public?

I don't vote. It only encourages them. :(

Voting is stupid, why do it at all.

It's something to do on a boring afternoon

it gives us a legitimate reason to hate the general public?

Like there's really a dearth of those.

Like there's really a dearth of those.

fine! I confess it gives me a legitimate reason to hate a general public of a nation I've never visited and know little about

plus the pamphlets put the 'ping' in asswiping!

It depends on what kind of role they have. If they don't really have anything to do with science or education, I don't really care; they can be ignorant all they want as long as it doesn't affect me. But if they're in a position that will give them power over scientific research or education, I am strongly disinclined to vote for a creationist unless their other policies are good enough to justify the potential risk.

The last thing we need is another war on scientific integrity like the one waged by Bush and the Republican congress.

I'm sorry, but I can't imagine that any other position a person might have on an issue could make me vote for a person who refuses to acknowledge the scientific realities of the universe we inhabit. There are too many potentially bad roads that belief system can lead down that go away from rationality for me to be willing to risk it.

believe in evolution and believing in God are not mutually exclusive. McCain even said in the debate he believes in both.

believe in evolution and believing in God are not mutually exclusive. McCain even said in the debate he believes in both.
Belief in creationism =/= belief in God. It is possible (though silly in my opinion) to believe in God and understand evolution--the two are not mutually exclusive, and that's the point McCain was making. It is, however, silly to believe in what is commonly defined as creationism, and to deny that evolution takes place.

Fortunately (at least in my eyes), Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo (the three US candidates who refuse to accept evolution) are all the prefered republican candidate of 2% or less of their party. As you can guess, I'll never vote for someone who insists that evolution is a myth.

I'm sorry, but I can't imagine that any other position a person might have on an issue could make me vote for a person who refuses to acknowledge the scientific realities of the universe we inhabit. There are too many potentially bad roads that belief system can lead down that go away from rationality for me to be willing to risk it.

Yeah, that's pretty much my stance.

I suppose I might vote for a creationist if the election in question was for some sort of job where that particular craziness really wouldn't matter, and if I knew them to be otherwise sane and competent. Never for a position with any sort of authority over education or research, though.

Belief in creationism =/= belief in God. It is possible (though silly in my opinion) to believe in God and understand evolution--the two are not mutually exclusive, and that's the point McCain was making. It is, however, silly to believe in what is commonly defined as creationism, and to deny that evolution takes place.Well, but living in the wonderful state of denial is already the very nature of believers. And since understanding evolution requires more mental effort than just saying "'God' did it", it's not something one should expect from believers.

I suppose I might vote for a creationist if the election in question was for some sort of job where that particular craziness really wouldn't matter, and if I knew them to be otherwise sane and competent. Never for a position with any sort of authority over education or research, though.What job would that be?

If I had been asked this question in 2000, before Bush was elected, I might have answered differently.

Things being as they are, however, I can safely say I will never vote for someone who exclusively believes in creationism.

I don't care if you mix creationism and evolution (I know that I do, to an extent), but don't even bother to try and pander for my vote if you think evolution is false.

I suppose I might vote for a creationist if the election in question was for some sort of job where that particular craziness really wouldn't matter, and if I knew them to be otherwise sane and competent. Never for a position with any sort of authority over education or research, though.

Disbelief in evolution is mutually exclusive with sanity and with competence in any intellectual area. With the modern evidence, even I, somebody who is, admittedly, not utterly brilliant, can easily draw the conclusion. While it would be understandable to deny evolution based on the available evidence many years ago, there is no excuse now. Even not looking at the evidence, in my mind, is inexusable, because the height of stupidity is to make up one's mind without looking at the evidence, especially when said evidence is so easily available with nothing more than a few simple internet searches.

Disbelief in evolution is mutually exclusive with sanity and with competence in any intellectual area.

Not precisely. The scientific method is after all centered around the idea one should test and disprove hypotheses - so trying to prove evolution wrong is perfectly fine behaviour.

However, I do not wish to see someone in power who simply waves his/her hand stating "yes, I know you state all the evidence says X, but I know that Y is true, so we will completely dismiss your evidence as being false". He/she might make that a habit at other issues as well.

depends more on there stances really if some creationist wanted to bring the rainbow of ID to school then no there a prick unfit for office on the flip-side (:cool:) if some evolution extremist wanted to force private schools to teach evolution...I wouldn't know what to think :s

either way if they keep there views to themselves there both fine so long as everything else is awesome

you mean, private schools in the US aren't supposed to teach evolution?

is that supposed to be normal?

Well, but living in the wonderful state of denial is already the very nature of believers. And since understanding evolution requires more mental effort than just saying "'God' did it", it's not something one should expect from believers.

What job would that be?

priest?

Voting is stupid, why do it at all.

Polling cards are just the right thickness to make good roach material.

What job would that be?

I can't think of one offhand that one typically votes on. I do, however, buy blueberries from a local farmer who is possibly the most insane young-Earth creationist I have ever encountered. (He believes, among other things, that dinosaurs roamed Europe during the Renaissance. I am not kidding.) He still grows very tasty blueberries. I would happily vote for him for Official Local Crazy Blueberry Farmer Guy. :p

Like others have said, to me, creationism (especially young-earth creationism, but ID doesn't escape this either) is indicative of some amount of crazy. With the evidence, if you don't accept the fact of evolution (just the basics, life on earth is old and it has changed through natural processes over time, specifics remain up to logical debate), there's something wrong with the part of your brain that makes logical connections. That makes you a liability in any position where you have a significant amount of influence, because you have a demonstrated tendency to ignore the reality of a situation in favor of an unproven (really disproven) belief.

I'm just grateful that creationism isn't much of an issue over here. Not even the religious nutjobs here seem to believe in that.

I'm just grateful that creationism isn't much of an issue over here. Not even the religious nutjobs here seem to believe in that.

There's a creationist in the White House right now who controls thousands of nuclear weapons...NO ONE IS SAFE!!!!:eek:

(hides)

There are not a tone of things that would disqualify me for voting for someone at least not in the realm of personal belief but a creationist denotes a level of thinking that I am not willing to accept in a representative of myself

I'm just grateful that creationism isn't much of an issue over here. Not even the religious nutjobs here seem to believe in that.

I just hope it stays this way.

I'm just grateful that creationism isn't much of an issue over here. Not even the religious nutjobs here seem to believe in that.

Unfortunately in England, Peter Vardy (of Reg Vardy cars) and the Emmanuel School Foundation are slowly sneaking it into schools thanks to Tony Blair's policies.

I just hope it stays this way.Well, unfortunately dumbass US American denominations like Mor(m)ons, JW, and other Evangelical scum keep pushing into Europe.

We can only stop them by having more sex.

There's no time to explain why, quick, everyone get naked!

I would vote for who would benefit our society the most.

I would vote for who would benefit our society the most.Which can be no creationist, at least no YEC.

And how is someone speaking subconsciously?

Which can be no creationist, at least no YEC.

And how is someone speaking subconsciously?

No, if he or she believed in Creationism but had a better plan to aid my community...fuck, he or she could beleive in a giant Space Goat and still get my vote.

And, how is someone really caring to ask stupid questions as far as to why someone has somethnig in their signature?

EDIT: Mind you, this is just a loose opinion. I really never thought it was all important to go into details, other than "Well, that's what I'd do. Now, go fuck your selves." :P ( I mean that in a funny way )

EDIT2: And the meaning of my signature is a joke, as in...I am what your subconcious is thinking, alas...a joke.

Not precisely. The scientific method is after all centered around the idea one should test and disprove hypotheses - so trying to prove evolution wrong is perfectly fine behaviour.

However, I do not wish to see someone in power who simply waves his/her hand stating "yes, I know you state all the evidence says X, but I know that Y is true, so we will completely dismiss your evidence as being false". He/she might make that a habit at other issues as well.

Oh, yes, trying to prove it wrong is fine. But Creationists don't do that. Well, they do, but they assume that Evolution is wrong before they attempt to do so, instead of looking at the gathered evidence. Unless evidence to the contrary were to surface, only a complete fool would think that it is more likely that evolution is false than it is that evolution is true.