Huckabee v Obama?

Horatius

It's unbecoming for the Spectator to include insults under the guise of analysis. While I accept the theory of evolution, Huckabee and Paul have a perfect right to doubt it. After all, it is only a theory. Plausible but not yet proved. (Ever heard of the problem of the "missing link"?)

IDOTISGALORE

BLAH BLAH BLAH how about THE BANK OF ENGLAND AND THE CHURCHILL THEY WILL SOON PULL??? WHAT ABOUT PAULSON?

Rev Goat Boy

Your mate Mad Mel believes in intelligent design does that make her a nutter. Sorry stupid question

Joshua

"Your mate Mad Mel believes in intelligent design does that make her a nutter. Sorry stupid question" -- Isn't you girlfriend/boyfriend just a little bit surprised when she/he reaches between your legs and finds nothing there? If you actually believe those things about Ms. Phillips, act like a man for a change, and write and tell her using your real name. Incidentally, what British gentiles really dislike about Melanie Phillips is that she often gets between them and their favourite sport of baiting Jews.

Joshua

"While I accept the theory of evolution, Huckabee and Paul have a perfect right to doubt it." -- The problem is not that they don't believe in evolution but that they do believe in intelligent design.

Max Kaye

Since we're bashing religion (an open goal really - as one has to be stupid to honestly believe in an all-powerful, omniprescient being who cares whether or not I have bacon for breakfast or 'wind him up' on Sundays) Mormonism must be one of the silliest yet. Oh, for an honest-to-god athiest candidate!

Huw Thornton

"Incidentally, what British gentiles really dislike about Melanie Phillips is that she often gets between them and their favourite sport of baiting Jews." Sorry, Joshua, what on earth do you mean? (genuinely)

Ian C

Is it necessary to publish such puerile rubbish as that posted by IDIOTSGALAORE & Rev Goat Boy. Joshua's contribution would not be necessary and then you would have had one warranted comment and more space for a constructive debate. Kick the rubbish off these blogs - all three of them, Please.

Rev Goat Boy

Joshua If that's your real name read this from your hero from a recent Daily Mail article "in suggesting that life sprang into existence without any kind of governing intelligence, they fly in the face of the evidence emerging from science that the hitherto unimaginable complexity of life forms, including the living cell, makes it scientifically impossible for life to have emerged without some kind of intelligent design." What I really dislike about Melanie Phillips is her closed mind on any scientific issues that don't fit with her political views, MMR, AGW & now Evolution I don't give a flying fxxk what non existent god she decides to pray to.

Ray

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own". Quite so - but just because you cannot put God in a test tube, does that mean He doesn't exist? And does my love for my wife also make me a nutter because it too defies rational scientific analysis?

Praguetory

Stephen - are you the chap who was complaining about abusive anti-Semitic emails? Matters of evolution are not what this election will swing on. Like many political pundits you risk talking about things of little to nor relevance to the wider public.

Nigel

Oliver Kamm patently doesn't understand the world.
He conveniently ignores the might-have-beens for Afghanistan, had Iraq not been invaded, and had 10% of the US effort in Iraq been expended there instead.
As for overestimating US influence in other countries, does he seriously believe that Musharraf would have remained in power these last few years without US support ?
As far as I can see, your beef with Obama is that you are both Iraq war believers, and he is not. And I hardly think you have based that belief on scientific principles.

Ross

There are dozens of reasons not to vote for Huckabee but his belief in Creationism isn't one of them. If all candidates that don't understand science are excluded then who would be left? Obama is as Oliver Kamm points out, not good on Foreign Policy, but it is also worth noting that he is poor on domestic policy too, essentially believing in protectionism, price controls and strong Unions. He is the black Jimmy Carter.

Linda

Well, not believing in evolution proves that Huckabee has lots of sense to me. Anyone who believes they came from an ape can't be too smart. I would suggest that you read The Quest for Right to learn the truth. Help is on the way to the embattled school boards who are searching for a creation/ID textbook that is written as physical science and not religion. Against the backdrop of a nation embroiled in debate and legal battles over whether Intelligent Design/creationism or evolution, or both, should be taught in the classroom, The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks designed for the public schools, proclaims a DAY OF VICTORY! The great gulf of ambiguity that once separated Intelligent Design from legitimate scientific discourse has been abolished. It is a fact: The Quest for Right has accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between forces advocating creationism and those promoting evolution. The Quest for Right represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The extensive investigation provides an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation on creationism that is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a result, creationism will no longer be considered a "matter of faith" and, hence, will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Intelligent Design is true science that will have a long-term sustainability. Searchers of the truth will not want to miss the unparalleled adventure that awaits them in The Quest for Right, Volumes 1-7. In bookstores early 2008. Volume 1 can now be preordered at www.questforright.com. ENDORSEMENT: "I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts, Senior Pastor at Irvine (CA) Presbyterian Church and former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers. Author David Parsons is a Bible scholar and scientist extraordinaire. During the course of two decades of intense research, the author has surmounted a thousand obstacles to true science. The resultant expert testimony is based on information contained in the oldest science book on record, the Bible. According to the author, "Exploring the relative issues recorded in history may be compared to a treasure hunt in that an intellectual challenge is manifested on most every page, but, once mastered, unequaled knowledge may be reaped." Mr. Parsons and his wife, Linda, currently reside in Metro Atlanta, Georgia. Website: http://QuestForRight.com

Huw Thornton

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Linda. You state: "The extensive investigation provides an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation on creationism that is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing." Can I ask whether this work has been peer reviewed?

Rev Goat Boy

Ian C I suppose the C is for censorship.

john begley canada

one can have intelligent design...and perforce a Creator AND evolution at one and the same place.....and in fact they are... next question.

Lee Jakeman

Intelligent design is a fact of life. We humans are intelligent designers. The very fact that we are intelligent designers raises questions about evolution. When we conceive an idea, such as for a laptop computer, it doesn't take us millions or tens of millions of years to manifest it - it takes us a mere ten. This is the biggest single argument against evolution theory, as it constitutes proof that not everything proceeds by a process of evolution and natural selection. Whenever a creative intelligence is involved, such as ours, the time taken for manifestation is dramatically reduced. Our cocksure scientists (and journalists, for that matter) take our extraordinary creativity for granted, even though it contradicts all of their basic assumptions about evolution. I repeat - intelligent design is a FACT - it is something we humans do every day of our lives. The fact that we are literally creators automatically makes Creation an observable scientific phenomenon.

john begley canada

and please...this Obamamania ?....the man is a lightweight....about as presidential as my cat.... and have a read at how Hitchens explains the (in)significance of Iowa... ...now everyone take a nap and wait til Febuary... ...and you wise guys ?...lay of Ms. Phillips...or else.

Neil

Lee,couldn't your argument be turned on its head? We ourselves are intelligent designers and so we subconsciously look for a designer as the likeliest explanation for something complex. Rather like imaging God with a white beard because to us that traditionally meant wisdom, or saying that a large valley was caused by the Devil's footprint.

Max Kaye

Is their any athiest who believes in 'intelligent design'? Is the 'creator' worshiped by Christians the same guy who is worshipped by Jews and Muslims? (Oh no - let's not forget Mormons!)

Lee Jakeman, the production a laptop may have taken only 10 years from conception. But one doesn't start from a vacuum. Whosoever 'conceived' and then designed and built the laptop was standing - like Newton - on the shoulders of giants: in this case tens and thousands of years worth of human development of knowledge and skills.

If you don't believe me, try this: I'm sure you can 'conceive' a simple pencil (you know, HB type, painted wood, graphite, with an eraser/rubber attached on one end by a small metal ferrule). Now, try to make one from scratch - without resorting to any prior knowledge, prepared materials or even tools (you'll have to make them yourself - from materials that you'll have to prospect, mine and refine, smelt, etc. etc. - Having taught yourself how season appropriate woods, metallurgy, sourcing and/or growing rubber, chemistry, paint production etc. etc.).

I'm ready to bet that even with an example to hand for reverse engineering - and not doubting that you are highly intelligent - it would take you at least 10 years to produce a faithful replica. It would take me a lifetime.

uentin L. F. Patch

What evidence basis is there for evolutionism? It defies experience and common sense. Atheist say there is no God, observe we are here and claim we made ourselves. That's say-so and not science. Evolutionism is an assault on reason and real science, which still demands sufficient causes for all effects observed. If intelligent design (ID) is a "religious" position and not about valid scientific concepts and questions, what’s so scientific about saying we made ourselves, because there is no God? The faith evol people muster, attributing to mere mindless matter the writing of our DNA instructions, is unsupported by evidence. The majority here in America thinks that rocks don't write much at all. It's hard to imagine they yearn to. Rocks are the picture of contentment just doing rock things. Forever. ID'ers ask questions like, Where'd the complexifying information come from in living things? And they stop. Creationists leap by faith to an answer. The mind of the Bible's God would be a sufficient source for that complexifying information. That's one religious viewpoint. Evol teachers yell back at them, "No God didn't! She doesn't even exist!" But then they are left with something as dumb as a box of rocks to think up the life cycle of the butterfly plus, in some cases, a navigation system suitable for migration over thousands of miles to some pinpoint on a map.

john begley canada

oh dear...we're being mired in detail and fact... just consider that by and large and on the whole...and that contrary to what experience may teach you....that you see in yourself and in your children parents and friends and lovers an inclination to literally feel enormous pity and love... ...THAT impulse is truly THE recherche du temps perdu.

john begley canada

or prolly more precisely the nostalgie de la boue

Hugh

I don't approve of this new-found love everyone seems to have for science. I'm sure ten years ago I remember intelligent debate where educated participants seemed quite contentedly ignorant about it. Now, we have Finkelstein saying the next president must be someone who "accepts and understands scientific methods", and almost every blog has someone wittering on about "how science works". What's the matter with these people? Didn't they go to school? Don't they remember how boring it all was? The only reason issues like global warming are interesting is because we've made them political debates. We need to be careful: we're in real danger of granting a generation of chemistry teachers a credibility and social standing that nature never intended them to have.