Why do GOP candidates keep stumbling on evolution? By Byron York

[mystery-ak]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-do-gop-candidates-keep-stumbling-on-evolution/article/2560254

Why do GOP candidates keep stumbling on evolution?
By Byron York | February 14, 2015 | 2:38 pm

Scott Walker stumbled on it during a trip to London. He and the rest of the 2016 Republican presidential field will face it repeatedly in the months ahead. So it would probably be best if GOP candidates prepared a quick and clear answer to the question, 'Do you believe in evolution?' They'll have to use it a lot.

If they are like most Americans, Republican candidates believe God has guided the creation of the Earth and its inhabitants. That alone is enough to craft an answer that will both represent their beliefs and work in a campaign.

The Gallup polling organization has done surveys about evolution for years. They ask this question:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process; or 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

In the most recent poll, done in May 2014, a plurality, 42 percent, said God created humans in their present form, while 31 percent said humans evolved with God's guidance. Just 19 percent said humans evolved with God playing no part in the process, and 8 percent had no opinion.

Looked at another way, 73 percent said they believe God has guided the creation of human beings. That's a pretty solid majority which undoubtedly includes a number of Democrats in addition to Republicans and independents. No matter their specific belief — young Earth creationists, intelligent designers, evolutionary creationists, whatever — the key element is God. Which means that a candidate should be able to say some version of the following when asked about evolution:

I believe God has guided the creation of Earth and all of us on it. There's a long scientific record of how life developed, and I don't see any conflict between that science and my own faith in God. I know some people believe humans evolved and God played no part in it. Of course I respect their beliefs, but God's role in our existence is a foundation of my faith. I believe He created us all.

It took a few hours, but Walker came around to something like that when, after the event in London at which he was blindsided by a question on evolution, he released a statement saying, "Both science and my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith and science are compatible, and go hand in hand."

Of course Republicans would be naïve to expect that will put an end to all questions. There will undoubtedly be questions designed to draw them into a detailed discussion of evolution and religion. A candidate will probably have a great majority of the public on his or her side if he shuts down those questions pretty quickly. The candidate could simply explain that there are lots of good people who have different opinions on this, and that for him, the key thing is believing that God guided our creation. Beyond that, it's not the role of the president of the United States to tell people what to believe about evolution.

Candidates can give that answer secure in the knowledge that, whatever some reporters might think, evolution simply isn't very important as a campaign issue. In 2007, Gallup asked whether a presidential candidate's views on evolution "are a legitimate indicator of whether he or she is qualified to be president," or whether those views "are not really relevant and therefore should not be discussed as part of the campaign." Seventy percent of respondents said a candidate's views on evolution are not really relevant, versus 25 percent who say they are a legitimate indicator.

Candidates should try not to alienate anyone in the positions they take. Where evolution is concerned, it's entirely possible to answer the question and at the same time avoid a problem — no matter how much some members of the press might want to stir things up.

[jmyrlefuller]

I think there's a fear of offending one side or the other. In such a wide-open primary, every constitutency counts, so they don't want to anger the religious fundamentalists but at the same time they don't want to appear as a kook to the rest of the electorate. There's not a lot of wiggle room.

Of course, the fundamentalist wing is a lot smaller than advertised and so I think there's more safety in professing that evolution happened than some politicians may suggest. After all, the Bible says God created the animals and the Earth—it does not say precisely HOW! (And even if it did, it would likely have to be a symbolic representation, not a literal one, as no one was there to see it.)

[massadvj]

Evolution is a theory.  It is not a scientific law, such as gravity.  In science, theories are not things that should be "believed in."  In fact, scientists argue that believing in a theory adds bias to the process of evaluating that theory.  Theories are frameworks for developing hypotheses which are then tested.  When so many hypotheses have been tested and verified that there is a general consensus in science that a theory is absolutely valid, then the theory becomes a scientific law, as it did in the case of gravity.

Neither evolution or global warming are recognized in science as laws.

The only people who "believe in" theories are people who are involved in politics rather than science, and that includes those who are trained in science but become advocates of theories.

Why conservatives have such a difficult time communicating this very basic principle is beyond me. 

Here is what I would say: "Maybe a better question would be whether God believes in evolution.  I keep asking Him but he gives me the same answer he gives the scientists: lots of evidence but no definitive answer."

[ABX]

IF they are a young earth creationist, the proper answer to media inquires is "I believe the same thing that Muslims believe".

Let the leftist media contort themselves in knots in having to attack Islam's beliefs.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I see no conflict between the two.

In addition, it is incredibly hypocritical for people to demand respect for their freedom of beliefs, then condemn and/or deny others political support as a result of their exercising the equal freedom.

Thomas Jefferson, from the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

"That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it."

Every time I read that second sentence, I think of Mike Huckabee.

[Luis Gonzalez]

IF they are a young earth creationist, the proper answer to media inquires is "I believe the same thing that Muslims believe".

Let the leftist media contort themselves in knots in having to attack Islam's beliefs.

Are those the people who believe that the Flinstones was a documentary?

[Oceander]

Stupid that people keep getting themselves tripped up by liberals time after time after time after ....

It's pretty simple people:  if someone asks the question you say:  "isn't it marvelous how powerful God is that He used evolution to create the world we see today?"  Evolution is as close to a "fact" as we're going to get with most large conceptual structures, so it necessarily stands to reason that God has used evolution for His own purposes.  And, quite frankly, His using evolution is a much more fascinating, satisfying, idea than the wave-the-magic-wand versions we usually get.

[musiclady]

Faith and science DO go hand in hand.

In fact, there is no science outside of God's creation.

Walker's eventual answer was good.

No one need say any more, since it's a leftist trap question to begin with.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Stupid that people keep getting themselves tripped up by liberals time after time after time after ....

It's pretty simple people:  if someone asks the question you say:  "isn't it marvelous how powerful God is that He used evolution to create the world we see today?"  Evolution is as close to a "fact" as we're going to get with most large conceptual structures, so it necessarily stands to reason that God has used evolution for His own purposes.  And, quite frankly, His using evolution is a much more fascinating, satisfying, idea than the wave-the-magic-wand versions we usually get.

What greater proof of a larger Will could there be than the fact that a single-celled organism managed to become an amoeba, transform itself into a fish that crawled out of the slime then learned to breathe air and walk on the surface, stand on two legs, discovered fire, farming, established families then societies, discovered flight and eventually reached a point where it could host the Tonight Show and land on the moon?

Evolution IS proof of a greater Will.

[Oceander]

Faith and science DO go hand in hand.

In fact, there is no science outside of God's creation.

Walker's eventual answer was good.

No one need say any more, since it's a leftist trap question to begin with.

It is a leftist trap, so there's no point in saying anything other than "I agree that evolution is correct." 

[truth_seeker]

It is a leftist trap, so there's no point in saying anything other than "I agree that evolution is correct."

In my formative youthful  years, I attended and was involved with church. However I DO NOT recall society in general being so concerned about each others' business and beliefs.

I had friends and classmates that were Catholics, and Mormons. They didn't try to convert me, and I didn't try to convert them. There was a civility to life, which has gone from some of us.

Whether you or I believe in God or in evolution is our own business. Does anybody know Eisenhower's or Truman's opinion on the matters? Were they urged to opine and disclose publicly?

I happen to think this religious stuff should have little to no place, in civil matters and government.

[ABX]

In my formative youthful  years, I attended and was involved with church. However I DO NOT recall society in general being so concerned about each others' business and beliefs.

I grew up in Christian private schools that promoted Young Earth Creationism and not even being exposed to scientific alternatives, I could see how bad the theories they promoted were at a very young age. They were creating a universe where God tricked people into thinking it was very old. I think when they create volumes of made-up science(sic) off a few sentences of the Bible is dangerous and is driving people away from the church.

[sinkspur]

I marvel at Engineers and Doctors and otherwise responsible people turning into children when they walk through the doors of an evangelical church.

The very idea of young earth Creationism is so foreign to logic and evidence that I believe that such people are either blind or simply ignorant or both.

But, I'm not running for anything, so it doesn't matter. 

[Carling]

Evolution IS proof of a greater Will.

I've been saying this for years.  I'm agnostic regarding a God, but I'm not a fool.  SOMETHING has to be behind the rather linear path from an organic cell (where that cell even came from is a completely different can of worms for Atheist Evolutionists, and is fun to debate) to the modern human.  If evolution where due to genetic mutations, and the stronger mutations survive, wouldn't the world be littered with genetic mutations that weren't an improvement?  Why is it that Atheist Evolutionists tell a tall tale of evolution somehow helping a species better adapt to the environment, to the point of actually extincting the "birth" species eventually? 

[Carling]

I marvel at Engineers and Doctors and otherwise responsible people turning into children when they walk through the doors of an evangelical church.

The very idea of young earth Creationism is so foreign to logic and evidence that I believe that such people are either blind or simply ignorant or both.

But, I'm not running for anything, so it doesn't matter.

I feel the same way as you, but knowing very successful people who are extremely Christian, their faith is what guides them, and it structures their belief system.  If it makes them happy, whom does it really hurt?  It doesn't make them any less of a mortgage broker, in the case of one of my friends.

I just don't let it bother me, and my friends who are Evangelicals never bring up religion out of their church, anyhow, and certainly not in their business life.

I lack whatever it is that makes religious people have faith.  I'm a natural-born skeptic, and I always have been, even when I was an altar boy in the 6th and 7th grades because my parents made up all go to church on Sundays.  I used to count down the minutes before I could take my smock off and run home with my brother to watch NFL football.  We lived a few blocks from the church, and to my parents' credit, they didn't make me stick around for coffee and cookies in the basement.

[sinkspur]

I feel the same way as you, but knowing very successful people who are extremely Christian, their faith is what guides them, and it structures their belief system.  If it makes them happy, whom does it really hurt?  It doesn't make them any less of a mortgage broker, in the case of one of my friends.

I just don't let it bother me, and my friends who are Evangelicals never bring up religion out of their church, anyhow, and certainly not in their business life.

I lack whatever it is that makes religious people have faith.  I'm a natural-born skeptic, and I always have been, even when I was an altar boy in the 6th and 7th grades because my parents made up all go to church on Sundays.  I used to count down the minutes before I could take my smock off and run home with my brother to watch NFL football.  We lived a few blocks from the church, and to my parents' credit, they didn't make me stick around for coffee and cookies in the basement.

Aquinas said that faith and reason go hand-in-hand, and I believe that completely.  How someone who utilizes the ironclad laws of physics on a daily basis can then believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans is just beyond me.

[Carling]

Aquinas said that faith and reason go hand-in-hand, and I believe that completely.  How someone who utilizes the ironclad laws of physics on a daily basis can then believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans is just beyond me.

Cognitive dissonance plays a large role in many people who have beliefs, instead of relying on facts. 

I went to one of those churches one time with my wife.  She was pregnant with our first, and we thought at least having somewhere to take them for a tiny bit of religious experience would be fine.  I knew the Catholic church, and the Lutheran church, so we tested out a "Christian" church near our house.  It was unlike anything I've ever seen in a church.  I swear to goodness, some guy a few rows from us was speaking gibberish, ER, "speaking in tongues," and people were jumping up and down.  It freaked the hell out of me and my wife, and we never went back, but I can tell you this.  Every person in that church was smiling, dancing, clapping, and yes, some were absolutely losing their minds, or so it appeared to me.  There were at least 1000 people there, and I recognized many of them, who were smiling and said hello as my wife and I shuffled out the back and went home, never to return.  It's not for me, but the atmosphere there was 100% positive.  My mind could never buy into that stuff, nor my wife's, but I do at times feel jealous of those who strongly embrace faith as a big part of their lives.

[240B]

How  many times has anyone ever asked a Democrat or a Leftist about 'evolution'. The answer is 'never'. Leftists believe that they are so intellectually superior and so much above the common class, they think that anyone who is right of what they think is reality is a moron.

So, when they ask these idiotic questions, like 'do you think the moon is made of cheese', they really do think that the person really does believe that.

The irony is, that Liberal fools are the stupidest people on the planet, and yet, they think themselves to be Gods, which only serves to confirm the conclusion.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I've been saying this for years.  I'm agnostic regarding a God, but I'm not a fool.  SOMETHING has to be behind the rather linear path from an organic cell (where that cell even came from is a completely different can of worms for Atheist Evolutionists, and is fun to debate) to the modern human.  If evolution where due to genetic mutations, and the stronger mutations survive, wouldn't the world be littered with genetic mutations that weren't an improvement?  Why is it that Atheist Evolutionists tell a tall tale of evolution somehow helping a species better adapt to the environment, to the point of actually extincting the "birth" species eventually?

It's only linear from the perspective of someone who sees the end result. We only see the line up of mutations that survived and led us here, and not the unimaginable number of mutations that did not. We are the surviving end results of gillions of random variations on a theme.  Linear only insofar as it is the one that's still going.

[olde north church]

I've been saying this for years.  I'm agnostic regarding a God, but I'm not a fool.  SOMETHING has to be behind the rather linear path from an organic cell (where that cell even came from is a completely different can of worms for Atheist Evolutionists, and is fun to debate) to the modern human.  If evolution where due to genetic mutations, and the stronger mutations survive, wouldn't the world be littered with genetic mutations that weren't an improvement?  Why is it that Atheist Evolutionists tell a tall tale of evolution somehow helping a species better adapt to the environment, to the point of actually extincting the "birth" species eventually?

If more than 99% of every species over time are extinct, what does that say?

[ABX]

If more than 99% of every species over time are extinct, what does that say?

God likes killing baby Dodos?

[Dexter]

Evolution is a theory.  It is not a scientific law, such as gravity.  In science, theories are not things that should be "believed in."  In fact, scientists argue that believing in a theory adds bias to the process of evaluating that theory.  Theories are frameworks for developing hypotheses which are then tested.  When so many hypotheses have been tested and verified that there is a general consensus in science that a theory is absolutely valid, then the theory becomes a scientific law, as it did in the case of gravity.

Neither evolution or global warming are recognized in science as laws.

The only people who "believe in" theories are people who are involved in politics rather than science, and that includes those who are trained in science but become advocates of theories.

Why conservatives have such a difficult time communicating this very basic principle is beyond me. 

Here is what I would say: "Maybe a better question would be whether God believes in evolution.  I keep asking Him but he gives me the same answer he gives the scientists: lots of evidence but no definitive answer."

It's important to understand that theories are still believed by the vast majority of scientists. When something is a theory it is the best conclusion that the most qualified people in the world have come to based on the evidence we have.

[Carling]

It's only linear from the perspective of someone who sees the end result. We only see the line up of mutations that survived and led us here, and not the unimaginable number of mutations that did not. We are the surviving end results of gillions of random variations on a theme.  Linear only insofar as it is the one that's still going.

For me, evolutionary theory means that man is the most intelligent organism this planet has seen.  That's a linear path of intelligence from start to finish.

I'm saying that the Evolutionists believe that evolution advances on random mutations, yet lead to advanced species.  That's as unbelievable as the world being created in 6 days not long ago. 

Please read what I've posted about random mutations, and what that should mean for the fossil record.

[Carling]

It's important to understand that theories are still believed by the vast majority of scientists. When something is a theory it is the best conclusion that the most qualified people in the world have come to based on the evidence we have.

Until you can replicate your theory in a controlled scientific setting, using the scientific method, a theory is at best an educated guess.

[Dexter]

I'm saying that the Evolutionists believe that evolution advances on random mutations, yet lead to advanced species.  That's as unbelievable as the world being created in 6 days not long ago. 

Why is that unbelievable? The vast majority of the random mutations are failures. On the rare occasion a mutation creates an advantage it increases the probability of living longer and mating more times. Each time there is a successful mutation it makes the evolving creature more and more successful/advanced.