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 3 4 5 6 7

Which part is evil??? God is not mocked and He does not put up with sin and Yet He sent His Son to take our place to pay for our sin. Everyone is a sinner and Jesus does not pressure anyone to have people convert or to be a born again believers. Remember its us who reject this great salvation or those who believe receive Him and inherit eternal life. The devil is at work at all times to fool, lie, deceive people on side issues as other religions, evolution and hypocritical Christians. The devil is like a raging lion seeking who he can devour. Lastly Christ is not evil and has never sinned. This is why He was able to pay the price for our sin.

garydt on May 6, 2009 at 12:49 AM

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

For crying out loud. Evolution can’t be proven scientifically until it can be replicated — reproduced — scientifically. Current theories of evolution suggest that would require millennia. Good luck on settling the question scientifically in less than 500 thousand years.

The day we start saying the opposite of what we know to be true is the day we deserve to lose. And it’s certainly the day that science dies.

If you demand a knee-jerk assent to an unproven — of necessity — theory, then don’t pretend that you have a love of science.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 6, 2009 at 1:36 AM

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

Some of the most made-up crap in books you’ll ever find are “proofs” of evolution in science text books, so it looks like you’re wrong.

Great example is the “Ontogeny recapitulates philogeny” proof that was still commonly found in textbooks 50 years after it was known to be based on fraudulent pictures. We could also list Piltdown Man, and other intentional frauds. But while we’re at it, there’s also the non-fraudulent but non-proof of the evolution of a horse, which arranges several extinct animals plus the horse in chain, asserts that one evolved into the other, culminating in the horse, and then asserts this as a proof of evolution.

To be clear, that could certainly be a plausible example of how evolution might have happened, but it’s not proof unless you actually show that one did evolve from the other. And there is zero evidence for that.

These evolution vs ID debates never really settle anything, and have no relevance to political issues. If there’s ever a group of people that should be kept away from questions of science, it’s politicians.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 6, 2009 at 1:51 AM

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

Earth to Chris Matthews, did you, or did you not pee on your leg…LIBERAL MORON!

byteshredder on May 6, 2009 at 1:53 AM

Mike Pence deserves what he got!

Any conservative, or conservative leaning, politician that sets foot on that doofus’s show is either naive, or stupid, or both.

Unless you are loaded for bear, and intend to dress this dunce down and expose him for the empty headed liberal that he is, turn down the invitation. It really isn’t hard, you just say the magic word – No thanks.

Joe Pyne on May 6, 2009 at 2:05 AM

Anyone who seriously believes the universe was created in 7 days, or that the universe is just a few thousand years old, should not be viewed as a viable candidate for office.

Why?
because they have a loose grasp on reality.
….
guitarguy on May 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM

I would say that anyone who seriously votes for or against a politician based on whether he believes God created the universe in 7 days, or billions of years, has no business voting?

Why?
Because they clearly know nothing about the role of government.

When we choose politicians based on their science, then we put science in the realm of politics. At that point, science starts to be determined by politics, which would be the absolute ruination of science.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 6, 2009 at 2:50 AM

Shesh Wiscon, you got owned, hard!

Kjeil on May 6, 2009 at 3:20 AM

For crying out loud. Evolution can’t be proven scientifically until it can be replicated — reproduced — scientifically. Current theories of evolution suggest that would require millennia. Good luck on settling the question scientifically in less than 500 thousand years.

The day we start saying the opposite of what we know to be true is the day we deserve to lose. And it’s certainly the day that science dies.

If you demand a knee-jerk assent to an unproven — of necessity — theory, then don’t pretend that you have a love of science.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 6, 2009 at 1:36 AM

Go right ahead, then. LET liberals paint conservatives as kooks. Give liberals all the ammo they want on the subject of “Intelligent Design” to mock us all as a bunch of wackjobs.

This is a sure way to turn off countless people that conservatism could be intellectually attracting, by the deplorable “strategy” of making anti-evolution some kind of major league public battle.

By the way I have another post in this thread in which I make mention of the specious, equivocating relationship that ID-boosters have with the concept of “proof.” You seem to be doing it too. No scientific theory can ever be “proven,” by definition — but that doesn’t stop the ID-bots from turning “no proof of the theory of evolution” into their idiotic mantra.

Edouard on May 6, 2009 at 4:34 AM

So Tingles is arguing, “his un-provable theory” is better than the other guys “un-provable theory”?

Isn’t that like arguing “ who is better, Superman or Batman?”

And this is indicative of intellectual superiority?

DSchoen on May 6, 2009 at 4:58 AM

When we choose politicians based on their science, then we put science in the realm of politics. At that point, science starts to be determined by politics, which would be the absolute ruination of science.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 6, 2009 at 2:50 AM

See “Climate Change”.

We’re already there.

Squiggy on May 6, 2009 at 6:30 AM

How can a finite mind disprove the existence of an infinite mind?

The kalam argument and Leibnizian Cosmological argument present reasonable arguments for God’s existence.

Anyone interested in exploring these and other related issues should read REASONABLE FAITH by William Lane Craig (the guy who recently debated Christopher Hitchens).

RandyChandler on May 6, 2009 at 6:52 AM

simple way to look at it is that the bible was written 2,000+ years ago. at that time man did not even have the words to describe the creation of the universe by God. there was no vocabulary for DNA, Billions, celluer reproduction, RNA, etc.

So the bible was written so that the bible of that time could understand god’s word. 4 billion years was a number none could grasp back than. However 7 days was an easy concept. DNA would never have been understood so instead we have ancestors and linage. Etc. Much like a Parent God has given us the Knowledage to fill in the blanks thru out the ages. He has given us the tools to understand how he created life how He used DNA as the blueprint of all life, how HE has shaped that life into the myraid of animals and plants we find in the world today. thru that Knowledge He has also shown us how fragile life can be. He has also given us a taste of His power by showing how He can wipe all life from the face of the earth if he so desires and how he can protect that life when we Honor HIM.

Evolution is nothing but Genisis with the timeframes and the cause changed. Genisis follows the same exact pregression of life on earth as Evolution. First He created life, all scientists agree that the SUn formed fierst in our solar system. He created life first in the seas. Scientists again agree that life started in the oceans. Last he made man. Scientist again agree that Man was/is the last evolutionary jump of the animal species.

Scientists say it was blind luck, christians say it was the hand of God. that is the final question. All the facts say that evolution was the means that God used to create life on earth.

unseen on May 6, 2009 at 7:04 AM

Matthews and his ilk on MSNBC continue to play GOTCHA politics, avoiding any facts that might refute their story.

afotia on May 6, 2009 at 7:10 AM

Muck Fatthews.
Isn’t that like arguing “ who is better, Superman or Batman?”

Superman , of course.

5u93rm4n on May 6, 2009 at 7:12 AM

I don’t see the link between Evolution and man made global warming. So far man made global warming has been based on inconsistant and politicized junk science. There is reason to be skeptical.

Daemonocracy on May 6, 2009 at 7:19 AM

I wondered why Mike didn’t ask Matthews if he was an atheist. I have to assume he is because of his questions. Brings the question to mind, why doesn’t Matthews admit on his show that he is an atheist and doesn’t believe in God?

I’ll tell you why, it’s because like most of the talking heads on MSNBC, Matthews is a hypocrite.

afotia on May 6, 2009 at 7:25 AM

The reason Mike Pence said what he did is that what may better be called macro-evolution does not best explain the data we have and there is no reason to do the dance with Darwin any more. Now, Matthew’s question is nothing more than an attempt to posture that the “enlightened” view of life keeps God out of the scientific equation. Mike Pence is right to reject that.

Allahpundit, you need to spend some time educating yourself to the criticisms of macro-evolution if you are going to post about it. You just might find that that the electron microscope and the advances in our knowledge of biochemistry will cause you to re-think the issue.

Darwin was a 19th century scientist whose theory was developed without the electron microscope and other devices and advances in knowledge of 21st century science. The question is why are we stuck with a 19th century theory as the basis of supposed enlightenment? In truth, Matthews is the rube.

Darwin proceeded on the basis of life not being complex and at one point stated that irreducible complexity would disprove his theory. Guess what? With the aid of modern scientific equipment, we have learned that it is mind boggling how complex life is, down to the simple molecule. Those who argue for intelligent design as opposed to macro-evolution talk about irreducible complexity. Macro-evolutionists who argue against intelligent design do so on the basis of experimentation that basically and unconvincingly says “it’s possible” based on very little data. Add to this that the fossil record is not consistent with macro-evolution.

Scinece today is stuck on out-dated theory because Darwinism became part of a materialistic, God-denying religion which appeals to pseudo-sophisticated liberals such as Matthews. That, however, is not true science.

Phil Byler on May 6, 2009 at 7:28 AM

You are presuming that the people that are trying to spread the benefits of this knowledge have the same kind of faith in it that you have in your myths — perhaps some people like that exist, but I don’t know any of them.
Your typing seems hysterical at times. I invite you to calm down and, you know, count to ten.

Count to 10 on May 6, 2009 at 12:08 AM

newsflash: evolution is nothing more than the FAITH of atheism…you cannot demonstrate it in the lab, nor in the fossil record…

you believe that given enough time, something will ‘evolve’ so in other words, you believe something that you cannot see, or demonstrate, or experience, its FAITH.

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 7:28 AM

I have to agree with Joe Pyne. Politicians, by nature, are media whores and they don’t pay close enough attention to the ulterior motives of the interviewer. Mike Pence should have known what kind of Obama-fellating scum Crissy Legtingles is and avoided him like the plague, or at least a coughing Mexican migrant.

SKYFOX on May 6, 2009 at 7:29 AM

The thing is, your scientific opinion doesn’t matter to me, because you are hostile to science. I know that the vast, vast majority of smart, trained scientists could look at this thread and would conclude that you are ignorant (or mentally challenged) for holding the Bible up as a source of scientific truth.

You lose pal. Good luck trying to stump people with your “eye” argument. LOL. Just sad.

WisCon on May 6, 2009 at 12:17 AM

shows how little you know…looking up some textbook….are you for real?

such stupidity has to hurt.

oh and I did stump you with that eye argument…and yeah it works pretty well when I debated real scientists who actually can put two sentences together, unlike you fat boy.

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 7:31 AM

It is really very simple: if there are no advantages to change, if the species in question is already as well adapted to its environment as it can be, it really doesn’t matter how fast mutations happen — none of them give an advantage, so its phenotype stays stable. If the bugger has a truly spectacular rate of mutation, that in itself might be some kind of adaptation, and is probably more a rearrangement of its “junk” DNA than of anything important.

Count to 10 on May 6, 2009 at 12:19 AM

oh yeah right, I knew you were going to say something like this…yeah EVOLUTION KNOWS when to evolve something or not…humans evolve…along with a host of other animals, but not the tuatara….so evolution has intelligence, it is the intelligent designer according to you.

oh newsflash: THERE IS NO JUNK DNA…its another evolutionary fable….which is all ya got, obviously…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 7:33 AM

The only way I can interpret your state of mind is projection. Evolution is a theory (or, more precisely, a class of theories) that consistent with observation.

laughable…the fossil record does not indicate evolution, nor can you duplicate it in a lab…

you say micro becomes macro, but you’ve never seen it, and the tuatara says it doesn’t happen…

all you have is faith, and thats all evolution is.

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 7:36 AM

all you have is faith, and thats all evolution is.

right4life

Ah, but it’s blind faith in “science”, which is better than our faith in “God”. Not sure how, but it must be because they say so.

SKYFOX on May 6, 2009 at 7:45 AM

The great bullies of our age like Mathews, Olby, Maddow need to faced and challenged. We cannot be cowed. I am disappointed Pence did not stand up stronger. These creeps at MSNBC have a taste of power and they like it and they will hold it by any means.

RobCon on May 6, 2009 at 7:50 AM

simple way to look at it is that the bible was written 2,000+ years ago. at that time man did not even have the words to describe the creation of the universe by God. there was no vocabulary for DNA, Billions, celluer reproduction, RNA, etc.

So the bible was written so that the bible of that time could understand god’s word. 4 billion years was a number none could grasp back than. However 7 days was an easy concept. DNA would never have been understood so instead we have ancestors and linage. Etc. Much like a Parent God has given us the Knowledage to fill in the blanks thru out the ages. He has given us the tools to understand how he created life how He used DNA as the blueprint of all life, how HE has shaped that life into the myraid of animals and plants we find in the world today. thru that Knowledge He has also shown us how fragile life can be. He has also given us a taste of His power by showing how He can wipe all life from the face of the earth if he so desires and how he can protect that life when we Honor HIM.

Evolution is nothing but Genisis with the timeframes and the cause changed. Genisis follows the same exact pregression of life on earth as Evolution. First He created life, all scientists agree that the SUn formed fierst in our solar system. He created life first in the seas. Scientists again agree that life started in the oceans. Last he made man. Scientist again agree that Man was/is the last evolutionary jump of the animal species.

Scientists say it was blind luck, christians say it was the hand of God. that is the final question. All the facts say that evolution was the means that God used to create life on earth.

unseen on May 6, 2009 at 7:04 AM

I’m sorry but you simply have not studied Evolution or the Bible. Evolution teaches that everything happened without external cause. Somehow a single cell (life) just “happened” within the primoridial ooze. There is no explanation given for where the “ooze” came from etc.

The Bible on the other hand, makes rather stark claims such as a round earth hanging in space (while science at the time believed earth to be flat), an infinite number of stars (while science taught only 6,000 stars maximum) etc.

We today believe ourselves to be quite smart. However, consider how un-smart people will consider us to be 100 years from now. Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven to be wrong by science. EVER! I’ll go with God! If one chooses to go with himself, he’s on his own. I shall not!

sabbott on May 6, 2009 at 7:50 AM

It is really very simple: if there are no advantages to change, if the species in question is already as well adapted to its environment as it can be, it really doesn’t matter how fast mutations happen — none of them give an advantage, so its phenotype stays stable. If the bugger has a truly spectacular rate of mutation, that in itself might be some kind of adaptation, and is probably more a rearrangement of its “junk” DNA than of anything important.

Count to 10 on May 6, 2009 at 12:19 AM

so how do you know there are ‘no advantages to change’? are you telling me over 100 MILLION years there was no climate change, no change in its food or predators??? right….what you are saying is a tautology…you have no objective measure of these ‘advantages’…so you think ‘evolving’ intelligence wouldn’t have helped these things??

its like natural selection…if its fit, it survives…how do you measure fitness? it survives…a tautology.

how do you measure ‘well adapted to its environment’??? it survives..and doesn’t change…another tautology…

these ‘just-so’ stories are amusing, but they are only stories…its like the evolution of the eye that a fellow darwiniac proposed earlier…laughable.

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 8:00 AM

Ah, but it’s blind faith in “science”, which is better than our faith in “God”. Not sure how, but it must be because they say so.

SKYFOX on May 6, 2009 at 7:45 AM

they have their own high holy day..darwin day…and they have their holy communion….abortion…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 8:01 AM

Still waiting to hear the anti-IDers complain about evolution being taught in history class (yes, it does happen and even experienced it myself).

Still waiting for anti-IDers to deny that taxes would go unfathomly high if Christianity dies because of all the social causes fronted/payed for by christian organizations.

Still waiting for 100% proof that something that we knew for a fact was 10,000 years before using dating methods has been then tested using dating methods and indeed came up with “it shows that it is 10,000 years old”.

Still weighting for macro evolutionists to explain why it’s perfectly fine to question any other science but if you dare question evolution then you are a FRIGGIN’ MORON that needs to be in special classes.

Still waiting for anti-IDers to explain why ID being taught is school is so dangerous when private schools (which happen to mainly be christian) and homeschooling (which happen to mainly be done by christians) turn out far more intelligent people overall.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 8:10 AM

BTW, believers in ID are not trying ot get evolution banned from school.

Meanwhile, the anti-IDers are trying to get the mear mention of ID banned from school (with not a single people about history classes needing to stop teaching evolution).

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 8:11 AM

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 8:10 AM

they can’t answer questions, only parrot talking points…

I’d like to hear them explain how they found hemoglobin and soft tissue from an 80 MILLION YEAR OLD DINOSAUR…

there’s not a chance in hell soft tissue can last that long…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 8:12 AM

For crying out loud. Evolution can’t be proven scientifically until it can be replicated — reproduced — scientifically. Current theories of evolution suggest that would require millennia. Good luck on settling the question scientifically in less than 500 thousand years.

Let’s not forget that intelligent design has been replicated many times. If you’ve played the Sims, Spore (is that out yet), etc, then you’ve seen Intelligent Design at work.

Let’s also not forget that micro evolution has been replicated.

However, notice how evolutionist never, ever, ever, ever bring up mixed breeding when seeing a newer, “evolved” version of a certain animal. Never.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 6, 2009 at 8:32 AM

Sorry. I don’t care enough to click, AP.

The only Matthews piece I’ll ever watch is his obit. (maybe)

bluelightbrigade on May 6, 2009 at 8:35 AM

Wonder if Mr Tingle, or is that Tinkle, would bring on a believer in the Koran and argue this point. Hasn’t got the gonads for that.
Although, what else but evolution can explain the existence of Mr. Tingles.

hillbilly on May 6, 2009 at 8:46 AM

I’ve always liked the quote, “Open your head. Arm yourself with clairvoyance.”
As many of you may recall Einstein’s “theory” of relativity has only recently been proven. I believe in genetics. If you actually read The Origin of Species (a misleading title) you’d have gather that Darwin was pondering about what we are currently learning through our advances in DNA mapping. I suspect that we will soon discover why some genetic markers have made, some individuals, select groups of people and societies advance while others seem to never “evolve” or advance past beating on drums or their women, or bullying the weak (are you listening Chris Matthew’s?).

kregg on May 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM

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

This is just the sort of arguement that should be rejected by both sides
Don’t argue about evoultion or nobody will like you arguement.
Just stupid. any scientist worth two cents will always be open to explore any arguement that comes his way.
I think the problem lies more with athiest evoultionist more than with scientific evoultionist.
Athiest are emotionally involved in the outcome, evoultion must be right or they will not feel validated.
Evoultion can not be proven. Get that through your thick head. You sound like an idiot when you deny it.
Just because you want it to be true really really bad does not make it so.

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Macro-Evolution is not science. It is a gross extrapolation of scientific data that is incapable of proof. It is a classic example of how many modern scientists have taken to lying with statistics. When scientists engage in gross extrapolation of data, they leave the realm of science and enter into the world of science fiction. The global warming cult is simply the most recent example of this. I do not object to teaching real science in the classroom, but science fiction should not be part of our science curriculum. There is more that enough real science to be taught to our students without including things like macro-evolution and creationism. If people want to debate and ponder such things in our schools, then they should it via a more appropriate venue like a philosophy class.

NuclearPhysicist on May 6, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Gee Chris – - like who cares?

kens on May 6, 2009 at 9:06 AM

After reading The ORigin of Species, Karl Marx wrote to Charles Darwin to ask permission to dedicate Das Kapital to him. Darwin demurred. Why? Darwin was not an atheist, and didn’t want to be associated with one.

Oh, also note well that Darwin’s book was not entitled, The Origin of Life.

Akzed on May 6, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Oh, also note well that Darwin’s book was not entitled, The Origin of Life.

Akzed on May 6, 2009 at 9:18 AM

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

of course to dissasociate evolution from the origin of life is laughable…

Next to life itself, the origin of complex cells is one of the most fundamental, and intractable, problems in evolutionary biology. Progress in this area relies heavily on an understanding of the relationships between present-day organisms, yet despite tremendous advances over the last half-century scientists remain firmly divided on how to best classify cellular life.

2. John M. Archibald, “The Eocyte Hypothesis and the Origin of Eukaryotic Cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Published online before print December 17, 2008, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811118106.

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Maybe we should let a few scientists weigh in on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58UDTq3kaZM&feature=related

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:27 AM

Whatever Pence himself believes, the GOP has a problem with evolution and the Democrats take advantage of it. Sorry crazy basers, but being ignorant about science is no way to advance a political party.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:34 AM

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:27 AM

you mean darwiniacs…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Sorry crazy basers, but being ignorant about science is no way to advance a political party.

Well said!

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM

you mean darwiniacs…

As if name calling is a logical argument, dude.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM

but being ignorant about science is no way to advance a political party.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:34 AM

well since you’re so informed, why don’t you answer some of my previous questions…like telling us the exact mutations, at the genetic level, that produced the eye…

or how can hemoglobin be found in an 80 MILLION year old dinosaur…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM

well since you’re so informed, why don’t you answer some of my previous questions…like telling us the exact mutations, at the genetic level, that produced the eye…

or how can hemoglobin be found in an 80 MILLION year old dinosaur…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM

How about explaining how man was created from dust….?
(And please provide the science behind that process.)

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Maybe we should let a few scientists weigh in on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58UDTq3kaZM&feature=related

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:27 AM

So these scientist say that religion and evoultion are compatible and that id is not science
How does this prove evoultion? It doesn’t, it is just scientist giving opinion on religion. So what.
Evoultionist have to prove there theory is true for it to be a fact. Proving ID is true or not true has nothing to do with it.

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Christians and creationists may lose political races and debates with the world, but when it comes to the final day we will have the final victory. Chris Mathews is getting his reward now and he will be speechless on that day when he faces his final judgement.

garydt on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM

As if name calling is a logical argument, dude.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM

uh right, check the mirror…you parrot the standard darwiniac line..if you don’t agree with evolution you’re ‘ignorant’ right…

uh ok dude, answer my above questions…and explain the tuatara while you’re at it…

one more for ya conman…explain this…

Tuatara Genes Are Running in Place 03/24/2008
March 24, 2008 — One would expect a living fossil to show extreme stasis at the genetic level. Not so for the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, reported EurekAlert: researchers found that “although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving – at a DNA level – faster than any other animal yet examined.”
looks like micro does NOT add up to macro….how about that??????

link

right4life on May 5, 2009 at 11:51 PM

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM

As for my calling denialists about evolution “crazy basers”, I do so because of interviews like Pence’s, where Matthews pushes for an answer that Pence can’t give without either pandering to ignorance or riling up the usual bunch of very misguided and ignorant people. Not that the GOP hasn’t done its share to misguide them on the subject of evolution, either directly or passively. That needs to change if the Republican Party wants to be a party of the 21st century instead of the 19th.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM

How about explaining how man was created from dust….?
(And please provide the science behind that process.)

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM

no one says that is science…its a miracle…and your alternative is ‘it just happened’ right…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM

How about explaining how man was created from dust….?
(And please provide the science behind that process.)

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM

oh and mr. scientist…why couldn’t you answer that question???

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:43 AM

about the dinosaur hemoglobin that is…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Not that the GOP hasn’t done its share to misguide them on the subject of evolution, either directly or passively. That needs to change if the Republican Party wants to be a party of the 21st century instead of the 19th.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM

actually evolution is a racist 19th century idea that belongs on the trash heap of history like that other 19th century idea, marxism…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM

oh and mr. scientist…why couldn’t you answer that question???

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Who said I was a scientist…?

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM

right4life, I don’t give a rip about “debates” on evolution in forums like Hot Air, any more than I give a damn about debating quantum physics on flat-earther forums. You can either avail yourself of the vast amount of information out there about the subject or wallow in your prideful stupidity, which is your choice. The Republican Party needs to stop pandering to you, however, if it wants to cease being subject to ridicule by the likes of Chris Matthews.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Not that the GOP hasn’t done its share to misguide them on the subject of evolution, either directly or passively. That needs to change if the Republican Party wants to be a party of the 21st century instead of the 19th.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM

And this brillance comes from a guy named starfleet_dude
Thanks for the advice but shove it Mr Spock

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM

You can either avail yourself of the vast amount of information out there about the subject or wallow in your prideful stupidity, which is your choice. The Republican Party needs to stop pandering to you, however, if it wants to cease being subject to ridicule by the likes of Chris Matthews.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM

As if name calling is a logical argument, dude.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM

try following your own advise…dude..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM

How about explaining how man was created from dust….?
(And please provide the science behind that process.)

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Isn’t that what evolution teaches us?

thomasaur on May 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM

So these scientist say that religion and evoultion are

compatible and that id is not science
How does this prove evoultion? It doesn’t, it is just scientist giving opinion on religion. So what.
Evoultionist have to prove there theory is true for it to be a fact. Proving ID is true or not true has nothing to do with it.

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM

The point I was making: Those scientists have no problems with their belief in a deity and their knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of evolution.
Pence could have expressed likewise.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM

The Republican Party needs to stop pandering to you, however, if it wants to cease being subject to ridicule by the likes of Chris Matthews.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM

I didn’t know CHRIS MATTHEWS was the guiding light of conservatism!!

when old chrissie leg tingle starts liking you, you should be worried…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM

starfleet, Mathews someday will have to answer his choice of rejecting God someday, but Pence still has the choice to run for office or go on Chris’s show. At one time it used to be a positive thing to be a Christian and run for office and now its a curse seems to be.

garydt on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Isn’t that what evolution teaches us?
thomasaur on May 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Where?

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:51 AM

right4life, I don’t give a rip about “debates” on evolution in forums like Hot Air, any more than I give a damn about debating quantum physics on flat-earther forums. You can either avail yourself of the vast amount of information out there about the subject or wallow in your prideful stupidity, which is your choice. The Republican Party needs to stop pandering to you, however, if it wants to cease being subject to ridicule by the likes of Chris Matthews.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Your a liar
If you don’t give a rip about deabting on hotair why are you debating ?
Anybody who disagrees with macro-evoultion is stupid and this is your brillant arguement.
You win the David Gergen award for for stupist post.
Take off your tin foil hat and crawl out of your mothers basement and get a job and then come back and talk.
And going to star trek conventions is not a job (starfleet_dude)

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM

I believe in both.

God created the heavens and earth is six days.

Six GOD DAYS.

Not six “24 hour MAN days”. Dude, a God Day is millions and millions of man years! All of human history has probably been but a yawn and stretch to GOD.

God made us (and animals, plants, the heavens) THEN HE LET US GO- to evolve or not, to follow HIM or not, to do good or not, to make war or not.

I would guess that the exact term that GOD used to describe his making of “heaven and earth” may NOT HAVE BEEN A 24HOUR PERIOD OF TIME, THAT would be MAN’S DEFINITION- and obviously flawed.

ExTex on May 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Who said I was a scientist…?

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM

if you’re going to defend evolution, you really should be able to do more than post a youtube link…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM

I didn’t know CHRIS MATTHEWS was the guiding light of conservatism!!
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Who said he was????

At one time it used to be a positive thing to be a Christian and run for office and now its a curse seems to be.
garydt on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Who said being a Christian was a ‘negative’….?
The problem is the reluctance to accept peer-reviewed, widely-accepted science.
The problem is believeing that the universe is merely a few thousand years old, despite overwehlming evidence to the contrary.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Unfortunately Michael Pence got played like a fiddle. Pence should have asked which scientific method Chris Matthews was using when he was trying to equate evolution to global warming. When Chris suggested Republicans can’t be trusted with “science” issues, Pence should have reminded Chris that HE was the one trying everything in his power not to talk about the science of global warming. Our Republican leaders are hopelessly too civil.

MichelleO on May 6, 2009 at 9:56 AM

if you’re going to defend evolution, you really should be able to do more than post a youtube link…
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM

I don’t have to defend evolution.
It does very well on it’s own…..and has been doing so for many years.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM

if you’re going to defend evolution, you really should be able to do more than post a youtube link…
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM

I don’t have to defend evolution.
It does very well on it’s own…..and has been doing so for many years.

And, again,…..who said I was a scientist.
The Youtube clip shows ACTUAL SCIENTISTS!!!
I thought they stated their case quite well.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM

The point I was making: Those scientists have no problems with their belief in a deity and their knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of evolution.
Pence could have expressed likewise.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM

He could have if he acutally believed it and I have no problem either way.
I am saying that I have a problem with evoultion and it has nothing to do with religion.
If somebody proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the bible was a fake and there is no God and it is all a lie, this still would not prove evoultion
As I said in an earlier post it could be both are wrong
No God and No evoultion.
Logically I can’t see how one species can evolve into a complete different species. As if humans could somehow evolve into a huge talking bird millions of years from now.
I get crossbreeding, and natural selection and adaptation but that is not macro-evoultion. Macro evoultion is transmutation and I need to see serious verifiable proof.

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM

didn’t know CHRIS MATTHEWS was the guiding light of conservatism!!
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Who said he was????

starfleet dude…

The Republican Party needs to stop pandering to you, however, if it wants to cease being subject to ridicule by the likes of Chris Matthews.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM

like we care about what chris matthews thinks…

The problem is the reluctance to accept peer-reviewed, widely-accepted science.
The problem is believeing that the universe is merely a few thousand years old, despite overwehlming evidence to the contrary.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM

you don’t have ‘overwhelming’ evidence for evolution…truth is there is little to none…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM

If you don’t give a rip about deabting on hotair why are you debating ?

I’m not debating the science here, but the politics of how such denialism is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. It’ll continue to be so as long as the GOP panders to scientific ignorance.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:00 AM

I don’t have to defend evolution.
It does very well on it’s own…..and has been doing so for many years.

cause you can’t obviously…you take it on FAITH obviously…

The Youtube clip shows ACTUAL SCIENTISTS!!!
I thought they stated their case quite well.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM

I’ve debated actual scientists…its funny how quickly they turn into foaming at the mouth mad dogs when their faith in the hairyone of evolution is questioned…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM

I’m not debating the science here, but the politics of how such denialism is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. It’ll continue to be so as long as the GOP panders to scientific ignorance.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:00 AM

you can’t debate the science…all you can do is insult..which isn’t a very good argument..dude…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM

The problem is the reluctance to accept peer-reviewed, widely-accepted science.

Uh, that isn’t the problem. The problem comes from the ‘theory of evolution’ that postulates possible random, astronomically improbable origins. Set down the prejudice blinders. Christians or people of other faiths can do good science. It is blindingly ignorant to say that Christians are scared of or set against ‘science’. It is the unifying or overarching theories that are postulated from the data that are in debate. Read about confirmation holism.

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I get crossbreeding, and natural selection and adaptation but that is not macro-evoultion. Macro evoultion is transmutation and I need to see serious verifiable proof.

Sigh. This is a common misconception about evolution, which doesn’t rely on such “transmutation” of species at all to be verified by both the fossil record and genetic evidence indicating lines of common descent. We really do share a common ancestry with other species, such as chimpanzees, no “transmutation” required.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Seems that now being a Christian and running for office is now a curse because you get these idiotic questions from Chris Mathews and others of his ilk. Those who believe in creationism are defined as rubes, rural hillbillies, and ignorant fools. Christ is the one who developed all of the scientific laws and Christians anyway believe in all science. Most of us don’t believe in the billions of years thing and that we evolved from slime.

garydt on May 6, 2009 at 10:05 AM

I’ve debated actual scientists…
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM

….I doubt it…..Perhaps you’ve debated them…..but it was probably more like a rant from your side….

its funny how quickly they turn into foaming at the mouth mad dogs when their faith in the hairyone of evolution is questioned…
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Understandable.
With you on the other side of the table, VERY understandable.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 10:07 AM

you can’t debate the science…all you can do is insult..which isn’t a very good argument..dude…

The only thing you’re doing is cherry-picking points that you ignorantly think are magic bullets that somehow invalidate evolution. They don’t, and I’m not going to waste time with you on such idiocy.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:07 AM

didn’t know CHRIS MATTHEWS was the guiding light of conservatism!!
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Who said he was????
starfleet dude…
right4life on May 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM

No he didn’t.
Nowhere in this post does he even imply that.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 10:09 AM

of species at all to be verified by both the fossil record and genetic evidence indicating lines of common descent.

really? explain this then…

there are pseudogenes found in humans and apes but not in chimps:
A truncated immunoglobulin epsilon pseudogene is found in gorilla and man but not in chimpanzee.
link
why are so many tests done on mice rather than on other primates? While it is also cheaper to do tests on mice, the real reason is that their bodily systems (especially the immune system) function more similarly to ours than do those of primates.
As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (30). The remaining trees displayed interesting deviations from the predicted separation of the 5′ and 3′ LTR sequences.
link

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:09 AM

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Do you design oligo’s?

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 10:12 AM

I’m not debating the science here, but the politics of how such denialism is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. It’ll continue to be so as long as the GOP panders to scientific ignorance.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Get this through your thick head questioning evoultion is not ignorance.
Free speech and freedom of thought should not be restricted by politcal party. Conservatives believe in open debate using logic and reason. They are also not hostile to religion.
If your logic and reason is so superior then you guys will win the day and people who dare question evoultion will become obscure and fall by the wayside.
But what you guys are doing is to try to make it politcally incorrect to even question this theory. That is just plain wrong and reeks of self doubt.
The arguement you guys use is (geez you guys suck) or look everybody elese beleives it so shut up about it or the libs think bad of us. So what

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Do you design oligo’s?

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 10:12 AM

no

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:17 AM

ok just wondering how you can possibly parse information out of that study you posted.

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 10:18 AM

questioning evoultion is not ignorance.

I didn’t say it was. What’s ignorant is cherry-picking scientific data you don’t even have a basic understanding about and parading it as some kind of magic bullet that slays teh evilution.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Sigh. This is a common misconception about evolution, which doesn’t rely on such “transmutation” of species at all to be verified by both the fossil record and genetic evidence indicating lines of common descent. We really do share a common ancestry with other species, such as chimpanzees, no “transmutation” required.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Realizing of course you are the smartest person in the world
Here is some guy with PHD who disagrees with you about that common ancestory thing.
Read if your able to
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_criticizingcommonancestry1103.htm

The truth is that MOST of the evidence cited in support of common ancestry at the levels of kingdoms, phyla and classes has had to be explained away to protect the idea of common ancestry. But if most of the evidence must be explained away, then it¹s clear that we¹re dealing with a philosophical doctrine rather than empirical science.

Of course, common ancestry may be true at lower levels of the biological hierarchy. For example, everyone would probably agree that all human beings are descended from common ancestors. And even many biblical creationists regard the ability of members of the cat family to hybridize as evidence that they share a common ancestor. In the absence of evidence, however, why should we accept as “fact” the idea that ALL organisms are descended from a common ancestor?

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM

ok just wondering how you can possibly parse information out of that study you posted.

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 10:18 AM

which one?

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM

kangjie, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in Pennsylvania, those who tried to teach so-called “intelligent design” were found to have a clear intent to teach Christian-based creationism in a biology class, and the judge, a Republican appointee BTW, in his decision said it was a violation of the Constitution. It would be best if the GOP would finally similarly reject creationism and cease pandering to ignorance to gain votes. It’s not a strategy for winning elections in the long term.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Kangie,

The problem is when adult, somewhat intelligent human beings – who are running for high office – state that they’re just not sure if the Earth is older than 10,000 years.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

The problem is when those same adults will want the best. most capable, properly-trained doctors (men of science) perfoming whatever medical procedures they might require.
In those situations, science is really good.
If we look to scientists to tell us if an asteroid strike is imminent, then science is really god.

But if science shows that species evolve, well, science then becomes really, really bad.

It’s 2009.
We’ve been to the moon and back, several times.
We’ve sent vehicles to Mars, and they’ve transmitted data back to us.
Science.
The Earth (round, not flat) revolves around the Sun.
There are billions and billions of other stars/suns.
There are billions and billions of other planets.
Science.
We’ve discovered cures and vaccines.
Science.

Again, I posted that Youtube link to show that this shouldn’t even be an issue. MANY scientists are very religious, but accept the proven scientific, peer-reviewed data regarding evolution.
Those same scientists must groan and shake their heads when a Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, or Bobby Jindal hems and haws, or expresses some doubt regarding the science behind it all.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM

didn’t say it was. What’s ignorant is cherry-picking scientific data you don’t even have a basic understanding about and parading it as some kind of magic bullet that slays teh evilution.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM

standard darwiniac reply when you cannot deal with the problems…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I didn’t say it was. What’s ignorant is cherry-picking scientific data you don’t even have a basic understanding about and parading it as some kind of magic bullet that slays teh evilution.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM

I think you did
You said denialism is an emarassment to the party
Almost like the spanish inquistion
Believe or be outcast and beaten

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Again, I posted that Youtube link to show that this shouldn’t even be an issue. MANY scientists are very religious, but accept the proven scientific, peer-reviewed data regarding evolution.
Those same scientists must groan and shake their heads when a Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, or Bobby Jindal hems and haws, or expresses some doubt regarding the science behind it all.

guitarguy on May 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM

usually they try to silence, sue, and harass those who disagree, like the ‘tolerant’ little brown-shirts they are…see sternberg, gonzales..

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Kitzmiller v. Dover case in Pennsylvania, those who tried to teach so-called “intelligent design” were found to have a clear intent to teach Christian-based creationism in a biology class, and the judge, a Republican appointee BTW, in his decision said it was a violation of the Constitution. It would be best if the GOP would finally similarly reject creationism and cease pandering to ignorance to gain votes. It’s not a strategy for winning elections in the long term.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM

that judge basically copied the ACLU opinion…its laughable…and souter was a republican appointee…

I’ll stick with christianity and conservatism…’conservative evolutionist’ an oxymoron if there ever was one…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:31 AM

right4life
This one

As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (30). The remaining trees displayed interesting deviations from the predicted separation of the 5′ and 3′ LTR sequences.
link

Requires serious genetics coursework to understand.

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 10:33 AM

sabbott on May 6, 2009 at 7:50 AM

I have studied both. In fact I have a B.S degree in earth sciences. And the fact is you can not understand what you read.

I stated quite clearly that scientists think it was blind luck that created life and started the evolutionary chain. In fact staticians have done calculations and have come up with the chance of life starting out of nothing would be equal to a coin flipped on its side 200 times in row. While possible it is not very probable.

However, I have also studied history and the fact is that most of the scientific facvts of today would not be understood by humans 2000+ years ago.

Genises and evolution are the same theory. they follow the same time line, the same progression, From the formation of the sun (let there be light) to life in the seas to life on land to the garden of eden. The only difference in the theories are the time frame and who/what started the process. Same goes for the bing bang thoery,

Scientists say that it was chance, Christians say it was God

The timeframe difference is the most easily one to be agreed on. 2000+ years ago there was no word for BILLION. the entire concept of a billion was not even on the radar. So IMO 7 days was used as a short hand easily understood concept. To describe something that was at that time undesribable.

the other difference will never be answered until we die and find out the truth or we become food for the worms.

Until people understand that macro evolution theory is just genesis dressed up without God there will never be agreement IMO

unseen on May 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM

The problem is when those same adults will want the best. most capable, properly-trained doctors (men of science) perfoming whatever medical procedures they might require.
In those situations, science is really good.

you do realize that evolution is useless in science? and in medicine? as coyne admitted:

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:35 AM

kangjie, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in Pennsylvania, those who tried to teach so-called “intelligent design” were found to have a clear intent to teach Christian-based creationism in a biology class, and the judge, a Republican appointee BTW, in his decision said it was a violation of the Constitution. It would be best if the GOP would finally similarly reject creationism and cease pandering to ignorance to gain votes. It’s not a strategy for winning elections in the long term.

starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM

I’m not arguing for teaching ID. Have I ever mentioned this in any post ?
I’m simply questioning Evoultion as anybody should be free to do.
What canadates do we have that want to teach Creationsism in leiu of any other theory? I don’t know any.
I am a little uncomfortable with the idea myself teaching creationsism. We have church and church schools for that but that is not the debate I’m trying to have.
I get sick of evoultionist “witnessing ” to me the same as religous zealot does. that is all I’m sure it turns lots of people off and smells like leftist poltical correctness to me

kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM

As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (30). The remaining trees displayed interesting deviations from the predicted separation of the 5′ and 3′ LTR sequences.
link
Requires serious genetics coursework to understand.

daesleeper on May 6, 2009 at 10:33 AM

really? I thought it was fairly clear…

right4life on May 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7