Can someone explain Mike Hackabee to me? (Page 5)

x2. Nicely put!

Evolution seeks to explain how life forms evolve as a way of explaining the diversity of species. It makes absolutely no comment about the existence of gods. An acceptance of evolution as a valid and compelling scientific theory (actually, it's THE ONLY scientific theory that exists) is not mutually exclusive with a belief in deities.

If you want to promote your religious belief about where life and the universe came from, do it on your own dime. It's not the government's job to provide the dime.

I have no objection to creationism being taught in a world religion's class but is has absolutely no place in science curriculum. There is zero scientific research or support for a creationist view. It doesn't belong in science curriculum because it isn't science. It's a matter of faith.

Truth can stand alone; it needs no assistance from the government. If you believe in the truth of your faith, do you really need or want the government to back you up? Is that how you validate your faith - by seeking government sanctioning?

Actually, we've had previous threads/discussions regarding Huckabee. I believe the question was about how Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus, given his nonconventional Republican policies, views and presentation. Most of us get that the reason he won in Iowa is very simple - he was working his Christianity to appeal to the 60% of Republican voters who are 'evangelicals.' BTW, 2/3 of those evangelicals cast a vote for him, so you could say that his "I'm a Christian" campaign worked for him in Iowa. Further, it wasn't just his "I'm a Christian" message; it was the ancillary whisper campaign that Romney is not a Christian that he hoped would work in his favor in Iowa.

Acknowledging his 'aw shucks' persona is not an endorsement of him as a candidate - it's just stating an obvious reason for why he personally appeals to some people.

Are you seriously not informed about the difference between evolution and the big bang theory?

Good thing you're not a science teacher.

It's been 30 years since I was in high school; evolution was taught in Biology and the big bang theory was taught in Physics. Charles Darwin brought us the theory of evolution. Here's a primer for you on the big bang theory which was developed long after Darwin's death.

huh?

Ummm there is tons of scientific support for the big bang theory and in science class it is explained what a theory is.  Our best educated scientific guess given the information we have.  No one hides the fact that the big bang it is a theory.  We don't tell kids this is the truth.  We explain the scientific method and frequently show how theories evolve and are often proved wrong.  

Agreed 100%. Finding the extraordianry person to turn into a great leader is the challenge we have. Not much proven leadership out there right now.

Contrary to what many people think, Jefferson is not the ONLY founding father, neither is he the end-all-be-all of constitutional and civic interpretation.

Of course the issue isn't whether a candidate needs to asert a certain styance on religion to be elected, the issue is that the electorate have the right to vote for a candidate based upon any issue or perception they feel is important to them.  To many, religion is important.  Why is this any different than voting for a candidate based upon any other percieved stance they may have on an issue.  Or say voting for JFK because he was "cute"?

And I think your quotes are taken out of context, or more appropriately not in the right context.  No one is arguing that the Establishment Clause exists.  However, contrary to the inplication of your assertion, the Establishment Clause does not require all religion to be removed from public debate.  Nor does it preclude the people from exercising their right to vote based upon religious ideology.

ANd in all fairness just to demonstrate that the system works, these laws are almost universally declared unconstitutional.  The last being the Intelligent Design debates that was struck down as violating the Establishment Clause by a Judge that was  a GW apointee.

I'm just saying, because I see so much "chicken-little" BS about theocracies occuring in the U.S. if a president is elected that holds an outspoke religious view.  (It also kinda ignores how laws are passed, you know the whole Congress thing)

Regarding the abortion issue.  First remember when Roe v. Wade was decided.  This was a privacy issue.  Additionally, you should actually read Roe, because the Roe decision has never allowed for abortions at will in all cases.  In fact Professor Lawerence Tribe, a very liberal Harvard Constitutional law professor, has posited that if technology advances to a pont where a fetus can be kept alive outside of the womb with the same easy as an abortion then the State's compelling interest in protecting viable human life would exceed the wonmans privacy interest.  (I'm just saying, because there seems to be a belief that Roe allowed abortions in all cases, simply not true.)

Now, on to the other issues, what if someone does what you say is so wrong for other than "bible" based reasons?  Or how about this one, I'm not sure your stance on the death penalty.  But what if someone believes the death penalty should be abolished because of religious beliefs?

Yup...what Renee said! (And I'm a Moderate Republican Christian)

(Oh I'm responding piece meal as I'm slogging through the thread. sorry)

Actually, the debate we were having boils down to whether creationism is science. It is not science; that's a settled matter of law and science and religion. Creationism is a matter of religion. Blithely dismissing the big bang theory, or any other scientific theory, will never make creationism a matter of science.

But to your dualistic construct about understanding and explaining the mysteries of the universe: Your two views are not the only views possible. That's a false construct, as the scientists who make explaining the cosmos their life's work while still maintaining a belief in a god will attest. Seeking answers - chasing down the many alleys that a big bang theory, for example, presents - is not mutually exclusive to accepting Judaism, Christianism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Sikhism, Paganism or any other religious creation myths.

To say that one must take the big bang theory on faith is to totally ignore the vast body of scientific work (astronomy, mathematics, physics) on the topic. That would be like me characterizing Genesis without actually having read Genesis (though it would be an infinitely shorter read than reading all the material which supports various hypothesis and theories about the cosmos). Scientific hypotheses and theories do not invoke faith or the supernatural for validation; that would be the antithesis of science.

Creationism says it has the answers and one must take it on faith. Science says it has questions and perpetually seeks answers and perpetually tests those answers, discarding any answers (theories) which do not withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Yes, you read it wrong. I am not saying there is another explanation beyond evolution - in fact, I said that it was THE ONLY explanation that science has offered.

Your misinterpretation is understandable. We were initially discussing creationism and evolution. Bripod ignored the indisputable point that creationism is not science and instead diverted the topic from evolution to the big bang theory. It is unclear whether he understands the difference between evolution and the big bang theory, but that is where he turned the discussion.

I'll say it again: Truth can stand on it's own. The big bang theory will either continue to be validated through new discoveries and observation - or it will be discarded because a scientist will discover a fatal flaw in the logic or math, or propose an equally valid and testable theory to explain why the universe is behaving as it does. A creationist view is no threat to the validity of big bang theory. 

As long as it's not taught in the science curriculum, I'm in favor of it being taught.

I wonder how people who hold a Christian creationist view would feel about Christian creationism being taught within the context of other religious/creationist views? Would there be complaints if it were not taught as literal truth?

I would think parents would want to decide and control how Christian creationism is taught to their children and keep the public schools out of it.

What do the Christians say about this?

From Huckabee to evolution - we have covered a lot of ground here  

My concern is that evolution is not a complete science.  There are many gaping holes in the theory, and it is hardly conclusive.  So how is teaching evolution somehow more acceptable than creation?  Why not give creation and evolution and all of the variables in between an equal platform?  We are supposed to be educating our children, not sensoring every opinion, regardless if it is a religious viewpoint or not.  The world is not a religious vacuum.  So why is it that we think that keeping religion completely out of the government/schools is feasible?

Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of species. What other scientific theory should we teach - one that doesn't exist? It is the foundation of all of biology. There are gaps in our knowledge - that simply means we haven't found all the answers. Saying we haven't found all the answers in no way discredits or contradicts everything evolution has taught us.  However, it continues to provide so many answers in so many different fields that it is considered de facto scientific truth. This link will lead you to a NOVA program that gives an easy to digest summary of what Darwin's theory has done for us and it says it soooo much better than I ever could. An excerpt:

Ahead of his time is putting it moderately for Charles Darwin. The father of evolution had conjectures that were only proved, or greatly substantiated, decades after his death in 1882, in some cases not until recently. Today, evidence that unequivocally supports his theory of evolution by natural selection, as well as other surmises he had, comes from an array of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, and, most recently, evolutionary developmental biology, or "evo devo." 

Creationism, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory, has no scientific basis, has no peer reviewed scientific text or journal to support it. It is not science. It is religion.

If you want a very thorough explanation of why creationism has no place in the science curriculum of public schools, read the 139 page ruling handed down in the Dover School Board case, where creationism was, yet again, tossed out of the science curriculum.

A very interesting excerpt:

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.