Jump to content

Guess Which Two Gop Candidates Believe In Climate Change And Evolution?


cinepro

Recommended Posts

I think this is great:

“To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

For Jon Huntsman Jr.'s fledgling presidential campaign, that was the Tweet heard 'round the world; the bold declaration that finally gave the oft-forgotten candidate a little traction in the 2012 race. But while commentators are gleefully showering Huntsman with congratulatory titles like “the GOP’s truth-teller,” the punditocracy has overlooked the fact that at least one other Republican presidential candidate has staked out similarly pro-science positions: Huntsman’s fellow Mormon, Mitt Romney.

During a 2007 primary debate, Romney, who was then competing heavily for the conservative Christian vote, surprised many by declining to join former governor Mike Huckabee and others in denouncing evolution.

“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” he said. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.” When the moderator pressed him to plant his flag in the “intelligent design” camp, Romney demurred: “I’m not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design. But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”

McKay Coppins

That's pretty cool, but I wonder if it will affect the election at all.

Link to comment

Anyone who is likely to dismiss Huntsman or Romney for particular views about evolution or global warming has probably already made up their mind about their fitness for office based on their more general religious identity.

I cannot conceive of the Born Again Christian who would vote for Romney suddenly dismissing him because he claimed God created our bodies using the process of evolution.

That would be the ultimate one-issue voter.

Link to comment

Anyone who is likely to dismiss Huntsman or Romney for particular views about evolution or global warming has probably already made up their mind about their fitness for office based on their more general religious identity.

I cannot conceive of the Born Again Christian who would vote for Romney suddenly dismissing him because he claimed God created our bodies using the process of evolution.

That would be the ultimate one-issue voter.

But it might not help with conservative Christians who are on the fence. Romney and Huntsman having odd beliefs might be forgivable, but climate control and evolution can also be political issues.

Link to comment

Only two Republican candidates accept the basic facts of science? What a sad, sad commentary on the GOP.

Almost as sad a commentary as using gotcha questions about personal beliefs in order to discredit a candidate as opposed to asking them about their history of and ideas on governance.

Link to comment

Almost as sad a commentary as using gotcha questions about personal beliefs in order to discredit a candidate as opposed to asking them about their history of and ideas on governance.

It’s simply the nature of Democracy in a country where just as many people believe in the mythology that God created the world out of nothing in the last 10,000 years as believe in the robust, scientific theory of evolution.

Link to comment
Only two Republican candidates accept the basic facts of science? What a sad, sad commentary on the GOP.
So people who rejected eugenics in the 20's were sad, huh? How about the land bridge theory instead of plate tectonics? There are BAD things coming out of the scientific community that can't be called facts. That you even use the word facts, suggests you don't care about science per se but simply believe what scientists are saying, regardless of evidence. Now THAT is what is sad.

Darwinism as the primary explanation for the origin of species is debunked and is getting buried more and more, even by non-ID advocates. Anthropogenic global warming, while there is evidence that humans contribute to an insignificant amount of warming, shouldn't be embraced like a religion. Even IF humans are a major contributor, China would have to stop polluting in order to prevent catastrophe. America is already relatively careful about pollution.

Link to comment

It’s simply the nature of Democracy in a country where just as many people believe in the mythology that God created the world out of nothing in the last 10,000 years as believe in the robust, scientific theory of evolution.

I suspect a vast majority believe in something in between the two extremes of young earth creationism and atheism. Only they aren't good fodder for TV interviews and political campaigns.

Having worked for a Governor who chose to negotiate for water rights, provide for reservoirs and prayed for rain on the Capitol steps I can attest to the fact that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive except in the mind of a few arrogant and insufferable pundits.

Link to comment

Anthropogenic global warming, while there is evidence that humans contribute to an insignificant amount of warming, shouldn't be embraced like a religion. Even IF humans are a major contributor, China would have to stop polluting in order to prevent catastrophe. America is already relatively careful about pollution.

China has already had some major problems with out-of-control pollution, some of it even reaching our shores in the form of contaminated toys and food. It will surely take decades for them to get a handle on the larger pollutants, and by then the Yangtse and Yellow Rivers will be flowing at low capacity owing to global warming and lightened snowfall in the Himalayas. The same will be true for the Indus, Ganges, and Mekong. Most of Asia will be in permanent drought and famine, and millions will perish. Enormous political upheavals will follow the catastrophes -- which will include ocean-surge inundation of low areas (such as Bangladesh). Millions of refugees with nowhere to go, and no aid available from other countries -- other countries which will have their own severe problems.

By ignoring these unpalatable results of global warming we have sealed our own fate -- or at least the fate of the next generation. Like the carefree grasshopper ignoring the diligence and advice of the hardworking ants, we will find a hard "winter" coming in the wake of our failure to plan for the future..

Link to comment

So people who rejected eugenics in the 20's were sad, huh? How about the land bridge theory instead of plate tectonics? There are BAD things coming out of the scientific community that can't be called facts. That you even use the word facts, suggests you don't care about science per se but simply believing what scientists are saying. Now THAT is what is sad.

Darwinism as the primary explanation for the origin of species is debunked and is getting buried more and more, even by non-ID advocates....

Does it bother you that the two Mormon candidates are the only ones that believe in Evolution?

Link to comment

Does it bother you that the two Mormon candidates are the only ones that believe in Evolution?

Nope but the question of AGW does. John Huntsman is done before he even starts. Look at his campaign. He has already stated that he would consider to be a VP on a ticket. That alone makes me question him.

Evolution to me has very little bearing on a governmental role. It does not matter to me one way or the other.

Link to comment

By ignoring these unpalatable results of global warming we have sealed our own fate -- or at least the fate of the next generation. Like the carefree grasshopper ignoring the diligence and advice of the hardworking ants, we will find a hard "winter" coming in the wake of our failure to plan for the future..

Yawn. I don't buy this stuff for one second. We have not sealed our own fates. Sorry I fully disagree with your assertion.

Link to comment

Does it bother you that the two Mormon candidates are the only ones that believe in Evolution?

The question is, was evolution guided? I have no problem with them believing in evolution, because Mormons embrace science. The evidence for gradualism is good enough and the evidence for common descent is compelling, in my view. I have no problem with evolution per se. I have a problem with materialism and Darwinism, i.e. the belief that mere random mutations combining with natural selection explains the origin of species. Again, that hypothesis has been all but destroyed.
Link to comment
By ignoring these unpalatable results of global warming we have sealed our own fate -- or at least the fate of the next generation. Like the carefree grasshopper ignoring the diligence and advice of the hardworking ants, we will find a hard "winter" coming in the wake of our failure to plan for the future...
Scientists today are again warning of a cooling cycle. It seems to have already begun. Ice ages are much more destructive of life than warming cycles.
Is man adding CO2 to the atmosphere?
One part per 50 million a year. Probably not making any measurable difference.
Link to comment

Tss, The earth is full with enough to spare, and we all know good steward has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and we all also know that God does not ask us mortals to treat His gifts with respect. stop your complaining you nay-sayer. If God didn't want the earth polluted, then He would not have provided the knowledge and ability for us to do the polluting. So really the EPA and other environmental regulations are of the Devil because they are in opposition to the God inspired pollution of the earth.

Link to comment

frankenstein:

Knowledge is one thing. The wisdom to use that knowledge as God so desires is quite another. ;)

Knowledge is knowing tomato is a fruit.

Wisdom is not using tomato in a fruit salad.

Link to comment

Tss, The earth is full with enough to spare, and we all know good steward has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and we all also know that God does not ask us mortals to treat His gifts with respect. stop your complaining you nay-sayer. If God didn't want the earth polluted, then He would not have provided the knowledge and ability for us to do the polluting. So really the EPA and other environmental regulations are of the Devil because they are in opposition to the God inspired pollution of the earth.

One can be vigorously, even fanatically anti-pollution and still not believe in global warming. Good stewardship of this earth and acceptance of a particular scientific theory is not equivalent. People were teaching and living good stewardship (in and out of the Church) long before any hint of climate change appear.

Link to comment

Climate change is Pseudoscience .... with some truth mixed in (i.e. climates do actually change, but for natural reasons, not generally because of men).

Evolution is science.... with some false theory mixed in (i.e. Apes became men).

I know who I'm voting for.

Link to comment

The question is, was evolution guided? I have no problem with them believing in evolution, because Mormons embrace science. The evidence for gradualism is good enough and the evidence for common descent is compelling, in my view. I have no problem with evolution per se. I have a problem with materialism and Darwinism, i.e. the belief that mere random mutations combining with natural selection explains the origin of species. Again, that hypothesis has been all but destroyed.

Should we talk about whether or not the mainstream theory of Evolution has been "all but destroyed"?

:beatdeadhorse:

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...