Chris Matthews to Mike Pence: Do you or don’t you believe in evolution?

posted at 8:50 pm on May 5, 2009 by Allahpundit

For your amusement or dismay, as the case may be, five minutes of increasingly awkward ducking o’ the question. “I think you believe in evolution,” says Matthews at one point, “but you’re afraid to say so because your conservative constituency might find that offensive.” Actually, my hunch is that he doesn’t believe in it but is afraid to say so lest he be deemed a total crank by the media. I thought the standard line for creationist Republican politicians when asked this question is to say yes, of course they accept Darwin, before quickly adding that that’s not strictly incompatible with belief in a Christian God. That way you get to have your cake and eat it too. Why would Pence decline to do so unless he couldn’t utter both parts of that rote answer in good faith?

Maybe Matthews is just grumpy because he knows that, despite the left’s best efforts, the public still doesn’t much care about global warming. Watch it all the way through, incidentally, or else you’ll miss his salute to the intellects of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and, of course, Sarah Palin. And to think, I thought he misspoke that time when he accused her of not knowing how to read.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

Increasingly irrelevant hack is increasingly irrelevant.

And a troll spawner.

blatantblue on May 5, 2009 at 8:52 PM

PS – taking up Knuckleheads lead:

shout out to hawk!

blatantblue on May 5, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Obama has returned science to her proper place: political demagoguery.

daesleeper on May 5, 2009 at 8:53 PM

The answer is that inter-species evolution is a fact. The origin of the species is unresolved.

ThackerAgency on May 5, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Pence should have asked Matthews if he has made it to second base with Obama yet.

daesleeper on May 5, 2009 at 8:55 PM

SHE BLINDED ME WITH SCIENCE.
Never go up against a man with a man crush.
If the Dems are so hip to science why do they back the global warming and ethanol scams

400lb Gorilla on May 5, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Matthews probably has more viewers on You Tube replays then he does watching live on his silly show that no one watches.

Hummer53 on May 5, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Why do people even go on his stupid show?

ctmom on May 5, 2009 at 8:58 PM

IIIIIIIII would have said, “Yes, I believe in revolution!”

SouthernGent on May 5, 2009 at 8:58 PM

The GOP guy is right. What the heck does evolution have to do with Cap-and-Trade?

Matthews is just such a hack. We had these arguments around my table with my grandfather over 40 years ago.

What idiocy.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Why, why, why go on that asshat’s show?

And I myself believe in evolution and I’m to the Right of Attila the Hun.

DerKrieger on May 5, 2009 at 8:59 PM

When did Matthews become a scientist? Evolution is not proven. . . maybe he should ask his Catholic priest instead of a politician.

Again, another fantastic representative of the Catholic faith.

ThackerAgency on May 5, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Made it to the 2:15 mark before I had to stop listening. Why do Intelligent people like MIke Pence go on shows like this? They have to know before hand that they’re going to get irrelevant questions like. “Do you believe in evolution?”

Tommy_G on May 5, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Liberals know they’re onto something here.

With anti-evolutionists on the rampage, getting into the news increasingly lately, libs would love to grill every Republican lawmaker with the evolution litmus-test, as the liberal ticket to permanent marginalizing of conservatives and showing conservatives to be ignorant and anti-science.

Creationism and ID are increasingly an achilles heel for conservative leaders, who need to unhook themselves from this issue somehow, and fast.

Edouard on May 5, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Matthews: “This is why people don’t trust Republicans.”

Good point, Chris. It’s a scientific fact that people only trust talking heads from MSNBC.

cruadin on May 5, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Matthews doesn’t have to worry about his carbon footprint. The only thing coming out of his mouth is spit.

CFL on May 5, 2009 at 9:03 PM

Just take a page from the Obama book: “Well, I wasn’t there. Are you really holding me responsible for theories from before I was born?”

Jim Treacher on May 5, 2009 at 9:04 PM

If you want to read a book about the failure of evolution, read the book titled “Darwinism Under the Microscope” by James P Gills, MD. Science has not proven that evolution is true and they never will be able to so, because evolution can’t be replicated in a science laboratory. Some day in the future, we will all be laughing about the fact that people once upon a time believed that evolution was true. There was a time when the “scientists” said the earth was flat and we now laugh about their belief in that. They also believed that the sun and all the other planets revolved around the earth. We laugh about that now too and wonder how those “scientists” could have believed such a silly thing. I’m not against real science that can be replicated in a laboratory, but the so-called science of evolution and global warming is NUTS. They take a premise and then look for ONLY that evidence that they say proves their premise and IGNORE ALL CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. It is much easier to believe in Intelligent Creation than it is to believe in evolution. Where did the original material come from that evolved? If the evolutionists can’t answer that question, they don’t have a theory, they have a FAITH!

TruthToBeTold on May 5, 2009 at 9:04 PM

Do you believe we should be teaching science in school or creationism?

Stupid question, but maybe he was addled by a thrill going up his leg.

jgapinoy on May 5, 2009 at 9:04 PM

Chris Matthews to Mike Pence: Do you or don’t you believe in evolution?

Mike Pence to Chris Matthews: Well, Chris I have evolved a lot in my career. You, in yours? Well, not so much.

MB4 on May 5, 2009 at 9:07 PM

Creationism and ID are increasingly an achilles heel for conservative leaders, who need to unhook themselves from this issue somehow, and fast.

Edouard on May 5, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Maybe we should ask Keith Ellison. Or even Joe Lieberman (I always assumed that Jews were Creationists). It isn’t an Achilles heel. Evolution can be disproven in many ways. . . but all those ways include science. How can you be anti-science and disprove evolution with science at the same time?

I don’t think either should be taught in science classes. Of course, I also don’t think that homosexuality should be taught in sex ed. I think every single republican who gets asked this question should say. . . ‘I haven’t quite reconciled how people born gay would have evolved.’

ThackerAgency on May 5, 2009 at 9:07 PM

I am really tired of pseudo intellectuals who host shows with 12 listeners.

d1carter on May 5, 2009 at 9:07 PM

Oh who cares. No one watches the show anyway.

I believe God created the laws of nature and allowed them to take their course. I hear someone else say that and I stole it.

Terrye on May 5, 2009 at 9:08 PM

Matthews is a certified ass, so why do these conservative politicians persist in talking to the moron?

rplat on May 5, 2009 at 9:08 PM

And why is that question even pertinent to a member of Congress? What difference does it make? I don’t care if a member of Congress thinks humans got here by space taxi as long as they defend the country, spend our money wisely, and don’t try to act as if they are our parents.

crosspatch on May 5, 2009 at 9:09 PM

If you want to read a book about the failure of evolution, read the book titled “Darwinism Under the Microscope” by James P Gills, MD. Science has not proven that evolution is true and they never will be able to so, because evolution can’t be replicated in a science laboratory. Some day in the future, we will all be laughing about the fact that people once upon a time believed that evolution was true. There was a time when the “scientists” said the earth was flat and we now laugh about their belief in that. They also believed that the sun and all the other planets revolved around the earth. We laugh about that now too and wonder how those “scientists” could have believed such a silly thing. I’m not against real science that can be replicated in a laboratory, but the so-called science of evolution and global warming is NUTS. They take a premise and then look for ONLY that evidence that they say proves their premise and IGNORE ALL CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. It is much easier to believe in Intelligent Creation than it is to believe in evolution. Where did the original material come from that evolved? If the evolutionists can’t answer that question, they don’t have a theory, they have a FAITH!

TruthToBeTold on May 5, 2009 at 9:04 PM

Sheesh. This right here, coming out of the woodwork is what I meant in my previous post.

Good heavens. Just keep talking, liberals LOVE this “evolution can’t be proven” stuff. Republicans look like the party of kooks WHENEVER this topic gets out.

This has to be unhooked from the GOP or we will not win any more major elections. I’m telling you, it’s serious.

This intelligent design fixation will be the death of conservatism in popular culture.

Edouard on May 5, 2009 at 9:10 PM

I think that is actually reconciled with science, Thacker. We have both sex organs within us. Some people even have that physically.

It just sort of makes sense to me that we’re all a bit bi-sexual, depending on genetics.

I don’t think my own God cares much about that stuff. But then, I’m not fundamental Christian, either.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:11 PM

Matthews is a complete ass — I watched him for about 3 weeks years ago and really couldn’t deal with his aggrandizing self righteousness.

Does anyone but the far left really believe the right is anti science? Do you know anyone you have met who seriously believes that?

What a tool!

No wonder I stopped even watching these YouTube videos of him posted here.
David

LifeTrek on May 5, 2009 at 9:11 PM

I thought the standard line for creationist Republican politicians when asked this question is to say yes, of course they accept Darwin, before quickly adding that that’s not strictly incompatible with belief in a Christian God. That way you get to have your cake and eat it too. Why would Pence decline to do so unless he couldn’t utter both parts of that rote answer in good faith?

Good point AP.

===================

If you want to read a book about the failure of evolution, read the book titled “Darwinism Under the Microscope” by James P Gills, MD. Science has not proven that evolution is true and they never will be able to so, because evolution can’t be replicated in a science laboratory. Some day in the future, we will all be laughing about the fact that people once upon a time believed that evolution was true. There was a time when the “scientists” said the earth was flat and we now laugh about their belief in that. They also believed that the sun and all the other planets revolved around the earth. We laugh about that now too and wonder how those “scientists” could have believed such a silly thing. I’m not against real science that can be replicated in a laboratory, but the so-called science of evolution and global warming is NUTS. They take a premise and then look for ONLY that evidence that they say proves their premise and IGNORE ALL CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. It is much easier to believe in Intelligent Creation than it is to believe in evolution. Where did the original material come from that evolved? If the evolutionists can’t answer that question, they don’t have a theory, they have a FAITH!

TruthToBeTold on May 5, 2009 at 9:04 PM

I’ve seen some of this “conflicting evidence”, and most of it is rubbish. I’m embarrassed to be on the side with so many people that believe in talking snakes and a 6,000 year old planet.

toliver on May 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM

I’m still waiting for someone to ask an evolutionist on a major TV station “Do you believe Intelligent Design is possible” and after they say no ask them “Do you believe in computer programs? The game ‘The Sims’?”

Yeah, unfortunately if it is asked the delay cut will be used or it won’t be shown at all.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM

crosspatch on May 5, 2009 at 9:09 PM

This ignorant Texan agrees.

Limerick on May 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM

The new standard MO is to keep asking stupid questions until you get an answer that everyone can flip out over. If they pay Chris Matthews from that $1.50 a show they are getting robbed.

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM

I don’t want anyone to have to change a fundamental belief to win any election, Ed…

I would very much appreciate a bit of elbow room, so we can just respect one another without having this become some issue that knocks out perfectly great public servants.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM

Remember: Intelligent design being taught as a theory in schools is dangerous to our children and will make them stupid. I mean, just look at the majority of private schools and homeschoolers that teach intelligent design as a possibility over public, evolution-only-because-it-is-true-and-we-know-this schools…

….

…oh wait…

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:13 PM

Matthews does push until he gets an answer that makes a great soundbite. That’s the schtick.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Of course, Matthews believes in evolution.

He’s part Cro-Magnon.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 5, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Waiting for the definitive LGF article slamming Mike Pence for being an anti-science zealot who believes Dinosaurs were here only a few thousand years ago. It’s just a matter of time.

zerodamage on May 5, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Edouard on May 5, 2009 at 9:10 PM

I don’t care if conservatism lives in popular culture. I’d like to see it applied in Congress though.

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2009 at 9:15 PM

I don’t know why Pence felt like he had to be polite with Matthews. He should have called him on his game and told Matthews he would answer that question if Matthews would answer, “Do you believe in God?”

Don’t be scared of Chrissy. Michele Bachmann didn’t give in, and she came out just fine.

L.N. Smithee on May 5, 2009 at 9:15 PM

Republicans look like the party of kooks WHENEVER this topic gets out.

For political cover and the record I am NOT Republican.

We have both sex organs within us. Some people even have that physically.

It just sort of makes sense to me that we’re all a bit bi-sexual, depending on genetics.

That’s poppycock based on what you feel. That is not science. We don’t have both sex organs. Bi-sexual? All of us? Are you Rosie? That’s what she said. ‘We are all a little gay’. Would you be offended if I said, ‘NOBODY IS REALLY GAY’? How is yours NOT offensive. . . oh yeah, you are a ‘protected class’.

We crave sex because it feels good. Our bodies can’t distinguish between it feeling good by ourselves, with a male, or with a female, with a mouth. . . etc. without getting too graphic.

ThackerAgency on May 5, 2009 at 9:16 PM

Sorry, but evolution is just basic science. And intelligent design makes me, even, worry about homeschooled kids.

I think the obvious answer is to point out the gaps in our own scientific understanding, much like we do with astronomy, etc.

But intelligent design? That’s an odd fringe belief that should remain a personal family matter. You want to push that on your kids, do so.

But nobody is going to want to see that in a national education curriculum.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:17 PM

BTW, I notice I don’t ever hear any anti-ID people complaining about evolution being taught in history class.

Yes, it does happen. Even way-back-when in the early not-as-liberal-as-they-are-now 90s I was being taught evolution in history class. Where were the evolutionist complaining about it not belonging in a history class, huh?

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:17 PM

I don’t care if conservatism lives in popular culture. I’d like to see it applied in Congress though.

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2009 at 9:15 PM

If there’s no conservatism in culture, there will be none in Congress.

Conservatives need to attract rational thinkers in this society, rather than repel them.

Edouard on May 5, 2009 at 9:17 PM

I’m embarrassed to be on the side with so many people that believe in talking snakes and a 6,000 year old planet.

toliver on May 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM

I’m embarrassed to be on the same side with people like you who talk so much about what you know so little about.

ThackerAgency on May 5, 2009 at 9:18 PM

It’s time to investigate Matthews. Find out everything about him, including the darkness and then destroy him.

mr1216 on May 5, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Chris Matthews to Mike Pence: Do you or don’t you believe in evolution?

This question will have credibility when they ask Obama… until then, Matthews is a tingling crack job.

Upstater85 on May 5, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Just biology, LN. We all have fragments of the other sex within us. It’s a matter of a simple chromosome that defines us.

I always found that interesting, not threatening.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:18 PM

It’s time to investigate Matthews. Find out everything about him, including the darkness and then destroy him.

mr1216 on May 5, 2009 at 9:18 PM

I wouldn’t want to search Matthews bedroom… /s

Upstater85 on May 5, 2009 at 9:19 PM

This is really sad.

There are PLENTY of scientists who believe in evolution, and who have no problem believing in (a) god.

But it’s really sad that people will turn to science for almost everything else (weather updates, travel, communication, medical procedures), but when it comes to evolution it’s: “Nope. God did it. And he did it all……in one week…”

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who follows a nice peaceful religion.
None-at-all.

But to have this mentality – despite science showing otherwise – that the universe was created in 7 days……it’s just really sad.

I’m also curious as to what Obama’s answer was when Matthews asked him that same question…..

guitarguy on May 5, 2009 at 9:19 PM

Good heavens. Just keep talking, liberals LOVE this “evolution can’t be proven” stuff. Republicans look like the party of kooks WHENEVER this topic gets out.

Macro evolution can’t be proven. Hell, there is no actual proof that the dating methods even work on something over 1,000 years.

BTW, how is it that after the dinosaurs were all destroyed that the same random act of creating a reptile with scales, four legs, and many, many teeth (amongst other many simular features to dinosaurs) just happened to be done again?

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM

Until conservatives refuse to bottomfeed for publicity by going on his show, then they, frankly, deserve to be skewered.

Nobody with any real clout would ever put themselves in that position.

That’s all CM does……make fools out of them.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM

But to have this mentality – despite science showing otherwise

Science also ‘proves’ global warming so we gotta have cap and trade thanks to ‘science’.

ThackerAgency on May 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM

Does anyone, besides Obama, watch Matthews?

GarandFan on May 5, 2009 at 9:22 PM

I thought the standard line for creationist Republican politicians when asked this question is to say yes, of course they accept Darwin, before quickly adding that that’s not strictly incompatible with belief in a Christian God. That way you get to have your cake and eat it too.

As a creationist Republican myself, I was not aware that there was a “standard line”, much less that anyone would be limited to that answer when a leftist media hack or an atheist blogger tries to use a person’s faith as a wedge issue.

Why would Pence decline to do so unless he couldn’t utter both parts of that rote answer in good faith?

Maybe because he was smart enough to know that no matter how he answered that question the media hack, and the atheist blogger, would spin the answer to prove some twisted point?

MikeA on May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Charles Krauthammer has it right with intelligent design. Please tread w/an open mind:

Phony Theory, False Conflict
‘Intelligent Design’ Foolishly Pits Evolution Against Faith

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 18, 2005; A23

Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous: that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.

Newton’s religion was traditional. He was a staunch believer in Christianity and a member of the Church of England. Einstein’s was a more diffuse belief in a deity who set the rules for everything that occurs in the universe.

Neither saw science as an enemy of religion. On the contrary. “He believed he was doing God’s work,” James Gleick wrote in his recent biography of Newton. Einstein saw his entire vocation — understanding the workings of the universe — as an attempt to understand the mind of God.

Not a crude and willful God who pushes and pulls and does things according to whim. Newton was trying to supplant the view that first believed the sun’s motion around the earth was the work of Apollo and his chariot, and later believed it was a complicated system of cycles and epicycles, one tacked upon the other every time some wobble in the orbit of a planet was found. Newton’s God was not at all so crude. The laws of his universe were so simple, so elegant, so economical and therefore so beautiful that they could only be divine.

Which brings us to Dover, Pa., Pat Robertson, the Kansas State Board of Education, and a fight over evolution that is so anachronistic and retrograde as to be a national embarrassment.

Dover distinguished itself this Election Day by throwing out all eight members of its school board who tried to impose “intelligent design” — today’s tarted-up version of creationism — on the biology curriculum. Pat Robertson then called the wrath of God down upon the good people of Dover for voting “God out of your city.” Meanwhile, in Kansas, the school board did a reverse Dover, mandating the teaching of skepticism about evolution and forcing intelligent design into the statewide biology curriculum.

Let’s be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological “theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge — in this case, evolution — they are to be filled by God. It is a “theory” that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, “I think I’ll make me a lemur today.” A “theory” that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science — that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution — or behind the motion of the tides or the “strong force” that holds the atom together?

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase ” natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us,” thus unmistakably implying — by fiat of definition, no less — that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an “unguided process” with no “discernible direction or goal.” This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an “unguided process” by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an “unguided process” of molecular interactions without “purpose”? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science. The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions — arguably, the most important questions in life — that lie beyond the material.

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too.

toliver on May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM

I’ve seen some of this “conflicting evidence”, and most of it is rubbish. I’m embarrassed to be on the side with so many people that believe in talking snakes and a 6,000 year old planet.

toliver on May 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM

Just the simple fact that you go to “snakes” shows how ignorant you are. The bible says “serpent”, which could be many different kinds of creatures. Hell, let’s go with evolution on this. Perhaps there was a type of serpent that indeed could talk back then.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM

“Maybe Matthews is just grumpy because ………….”

……….. he wasn’t invited to lunch by his boyfriend.

Seven Percent Solution on May 5, 2009 at 9:24 PM

I only watched about the first third of the video, and Chris Mathews is effing right. I hate the guy, but he is so right. This is one of the largest problems with republicans.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Frankly I’m tired of the piss-poor either/or argument between Creation or evolution. The argument will never get anywhere because of the zealots and Luddites. Evolution cannot prove or disprove origin and Creationism doesn’t prove or disprove evolution. neat.

daesleeper on May 5, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Edouard on May 5, 2009 at 9:17 PM

I have actually seen people post here that they could never vote for anyone in a party who had members that believe the earth is only 6000 years old. Talk about sweating the small stuff. If that is a deal breaker then no party is available. There is no monolith of thinking anywhere. This discussion has no relevance in political discourse and is just another tactic of the left that is predictable and unfortunately successful.

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Sorry, but evolution is just basic science. And intelligent design makes me, even, worry about homeschooled kids.

Yeah, those homeschool kids sure are turned stupid. I mean, look at their low, low test score and the low, low paying jobs they end up with in the…..

….oh wait….

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:26 PM

@ DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM

By “go with evolution”, I assume then that you have some EVIDENCE that snakes used to have the ability to speak, because evidence is why evolution is the accepted wisdom of current life on earth. See, with evolution you don’t just get to make crap up like when you write a story in a book.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Macro evolution can’t be proven. Hell, there is no actual proof that the dating methods even work on something over 1,000 years.

BTW, how is it that after the dinosaurs were all destroyed that the same random act of creating a reptile with scales, four legs, and many, many teeth (amongst other many simular features to dinosaurs) just happened to be done again?

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM

ID can’t be quote-unquote “proven” either.

Look I’m not going to fight with you about evolution because I have other things to do. Scientists examine evidence and form theories based on the evidents. Theories by definition are never “proven” — only facts are demonstrable.

ID supporters uniformly equivocate (in the precise meaning of the term “equivocate”) over this issue of “proof.” “Proof,” in other words, is one thing, then it’s another thing for the anti-evolutionists, whichever is most convenient. The bottom line in biological science is really, simply, examining facts and explaining them usefully, and then letting the chips fall where they may.

To deny the scientific ability of those who argue for evolution makes ID supporters look like kooks. I’m sorry, there are plenty of scientists who have no allegiance out there except to what they observe who find in favor of evolutionary explanations.

ID supporters uniformly come off like anti-science kooks, and there are plenty of liberals out there salivating at the chance to paint all conservatives with the brush of “kooks”

Edouard on May 5, 2009 at 9:27 PM

toliver on May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM

I love Mr. Krauthammer.

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM

daesleeper on May 5, 2009 at 9:25 PM

It is really not that hard to grasp daesleeper. God created evolution.

MikeA on May 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM

@ Cindy Munford on May 5, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Its a little scary that there are people willing to ignore such a massive amount of evidence so that they don’t ever have to question their faith.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM

But to have this mentality – despite science showing otherwise – that the universe was created in 7 days……it’s just really sad.

No, science hasn’t showed us otherwise. Not when every bit of “evidence” contains words/phrases such and “possibly”, “might have”, “their’s a change”, etc.

BTW, are eggs bad for you or good for you now?

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Just the simple fact that you go to “snakes” shows how ignorant you are. The bible says “serpent”, which could be many different kinds of creatures. Hell, let’s go with evolution on this. Perhaps there was a type of serpent that indeed could talk back then.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Yeah, the fossil record points to various speech capable lizards 6,000 years ago. Wait, you’re doing shtick, no?

toliver on May 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM

I’d love Chris Matthews to ask every Democrat who comes on his show to disavow unions.

MayBee on May 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM

But nobody is going to want to see that in a national education curriculum.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:17 PM

I’d rather not ever see a national education curriculum.

myrenovations on May 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM

I’m not a keen supporter of homeschooling.

It seems obviously anti-social to me.

BUT….I come from a public educator’s family. We sort of embrace that school is probably a ton more about social skills building than actual information.

I do worry about those kids. Did you employ this with your kids?

I probably stepped on your toes, if so.

Some I’ve met? It worked out fine.

Others? Frankly, it was a way to remain highly dysfunctional.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:30 PM

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Whatcha gonna do, when Jesus riding a dinosaur runs wild on you.

I hope you’re kidding.

lorien1973 on May 5, 2009 at 9:30 PM

Creationism versus Evolution? I am happy either way insofar as Chrissy Matthews is concerned.

If evolution is correct his genetic makeup may improve or just pass away.

If intelligent design is correct, he will have some explaining to do, although I know that God’s mercy is limitless.

P. S. Lots of casual but enlightening comments here. Esp. toliver

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Oh well, Bush gave us that, my. We’re stuck with it. People love to hate the testing, but they do love the national testing.

(My teacher friends hate it. They agree with you. But then, we have to remember that they failed miserably for years without these standards, too.)

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:32 PM

@ DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Are you serious? We have MASSIVE amounts of evidence as to the creation of the earth and the formation of continents, etc. We know for an absolute fact that the continents are constantly shifting and have NEVER looked the way they do this instant before. We know the age of the earth to within a couple million years. NONE of this evidence works at all with the bible.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:32 PM

Its a little scary that there are people willing to ignore such a massive amount of evidence so that they don’t ever have to question their faith.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Define ‘faith’.

This should be elucidating.

daesleeper on May 5, 2009 at 9:33 PM

Cindy, I have no problem voting for a candidate who also appeals to someone with vastly differing beliefs.

I always have been in that position, and so has everyone else if they think 2 minutes.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:33 PM

@ DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM

By “go with evolution”, I assume then that you have some EVIDENCE that snakes used to have the ability to speak, because evidence is why evolution is the accepted wisdom of current life on earth. See, with evolution you don’t just get to make crap up like when you write a story in a book.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:27 PM

What evidence? Every bit of “evidence” uses words/phrases such as of “evidence” contains words/phrases such as “maybe”, “might have”, “possibly”, “might have”, “their’s a change”, etc.

Where’s your evidence that the dating methods used actually work for anything over 1,000 years old let alone “millions”?

BTW, are eggs bad for you now or good? Is the earth now going to be flooded or is it going to be in an ice age?

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:33 PM

NONE of this evidence works at all with the bible.

Actually, yes, it does. Just not the way you want it to.

MikeA on May 5, 2009 at 9:34 PM

@ IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2009 at 9:31 PM

I’ll save you some time, intelligent design is not right. Every tenet of the theory has been debunked, and has been for a while. The only reason that people haven’t heard is that it was never taken seriously to begin with, and those who believe in it couldn’t care less about real science anyway.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:34 PM

I guess i’m already stating the obvious, but Chris Matthews is one heckuva ignorant moron.

RedbonePro on May 5, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Chris Matthews is proof positive that evolution does not exist.

edgehead on May 5, 2009 at 9:34 PM

The fact is that there is such a small minority of people who take the Bible literally…..this is a strawman.

It has virtually nothing to do with real politics.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:34 PM

@ daesleeper on May 5, 2009 at 9:33 PM

The belief in something without need of evidence or consensus.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:35 PM

This is going to be a pointless 200+ comment thread pitting ID vs evolution, isn’t it?

Those who believe in ID do so on religous grounds. No amount of evidence is going to convince someone that deeply held religious beliefs are wrong.

Those who believe in Darwinian evolution do so based on scientific evidence that can’t really be proven with 100% certainty.

The reason this is a pointless debate: If you believe in an omnipotent God and miracles, you by definition believe in the supernatural. Therefore modern evidence from the natural world should not be considered a threat to your religious beliefs.

How many Christians would abandon their religion if it could be proven with 100% certainty that the Earth was 4,974,327,618 years old? I would like to think very few.

Hollowpoint on May 5, 2009 at 9:36 PM

The fact is that there is such a small minority of people who take the Bible literally…..this is a strawman.

It has virtually nothing to do with real politics.

Amen!

MayBee on May 5, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Why? Why? Why? Do these moron Republicans go on Chris Matthews? Did they give an IQ test in the caucus and the ones that failed it go on MSNBC? They cannot win there? Hello? Show some tactical intelligence only fools go places where they cannot win.

Jdripper on May 5, 2009 at 9:36 PM

This is off topic but interesting. Republicans are outpolling Democrats again.

Terrye on May 5, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Don’t let things like reality and facts get in the way of your prejudice thphilli. What was that the Republican party needed? Something about the size of a tenement? Tent!

daesleeper on May 5, 2009 at 9:36 PM

@ DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:33 PM

You are hilariously moronic. Evidence as in several different dating techniques all confirming the same age. And yes, there are TONS of dating techniques that are accurate past 1000 years.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Intelligent design hasn’t done much other than gotten schools in deep trouble.

Here’s a fun story for you guys. My grandfather used to preach about evolution in his position as a Baptist minister.

No kidding.

He was both a scientist and a Baptist.

Man, he upset his congregation more than once. *haha

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:37 PM

How many Christians would abandon their religion if it could be proven with 100% certainty that the Earth was 4,974,327,618 years old? I would like to think very few.

The Bible does not contridict that concept, at all.

MikeA on May 5, 2009 at 9:37 PM

ID can’t be quote-unquote “proven” either.

Unlike macro evolution, we’ve actually seen intelligent design. What the hell do you think computer programs are? Artificial intelligent (intelligence that was, gasp, intelligently designed). Everything contained in said program, no matter how different each thing is (think The Sims or any other game), each one is made up of bits (think atoms). 1 and 0s? Protons and electrons. A creation that can “see” everything in it but it’s “creator”, but the “creator” can see it’s creation.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:38 PM

The belief in something without need of evidence or consensus.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:35 PM

And here is your prejudice. Thanks!

daesleeper on May 5, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Well that was… something. Yeah I think he was shooting for “Look at these idiots they dont even believe in evolution so who cares about the Global Warming polls”

Which, I have to give it to him, is a pretty sneaky way of pushing the liberal agenda, he’s just really bad at executing it.

Dash on May 5, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Hence, my “liberal” attitude.

I both get religious folks as well as scientists.

I see no real conflict.

I think it goes back to exactly what my granddad told me. People just get nuts over the idea that we may have evolved from apes.

They look at today’s apes and just get upset.

It’s sort of funny, huh. Species pride.

AnninCA on May 5, 2009 at 9:39 PM

The Bible does not contridict that concept, at all.

MikeA on May 5, 2009 at 9:37 PM

Depends on who you ask. Many firmly believe that it does.

Hollowpoint on May 5, 2009 at 9:39 PM

@ DethMetalCookieMonst on May 5, 2009 at 9:38 PM

You do understand intelligent design as a theory has certain tenets right? You absolutely aren’t talking about the theory, you are talking about creationism with a fancy name. In none of your posts have you brought up any of the main three tenets of intelligent design, nor can you defend them.

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:39 PM

One can be a good Christian and not accept some of the myths in Genesis.

toliver on May 5, 2009 at 9:39 PM

thphilli on May 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM

I am pretty sure that is the very meaning of faith. I think you can see by this thread that beliefs or theories on this subject run the gamut. I could vote for someone who totally embraces their beliefs in God before someone who believes that they can cure debt by borrowing more and more money on the chance that they will be able to steal from someone else later.

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2009 at 9:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7