<blockquote>
<p>Why is this question even important?
Even if we all agree that evolution is cold hard fact and anyone who disagrees is severely misguided, why are we asking this of our presidential candidates?<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>The question is important because it's good to know whether a possible future leader of free world embraces science or not. What kind of thinking informs this person's view of the world? Does he rely more on science for his data or does he prefer to use one particularly-narrow interpretation of a translated ancient Hebrew document for his modern scientific data? Will he perhaps try to mold federal education policy to match his personal religious beliefs, or will he let science be science?</p>
<p>There are lot of important considerations that flow from the original question.</p>
<p>It is important that an American president believe in and support the biological sciences. If not, the innovation on that end will come from Europe and Asia. Which is fine if you believe that in a globalized world the best man should win. But I don't. I think we should ALWAYS strive to be the best man and win. Of course, if you have a president who doesn't believe in evolution or the importance of stem cell research, you are likely to get less support, and therefore less groundbreaking advances.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe in evolution, but calling it "fact" is irresponsible. Other common beliefs that were once "facts" is the flat nature of earth, the stars which revolve around earth, and the Gods which cause the winds to blow.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This argument is flawed. For one, it doesn't take into account the fact that "facts" in science change. It was once considered a "fact" that proteins were the building block of cellular life, not DNA. It was once considered a "fact" that the atom was the smallest constituent part of matter.</p>
<p>So what? The beauty of science is that it attempts to eschew dogma and instead accept the changes that come with experience and time. Besides, the flat-earthers weren't fully accepted. The Greeks envisioned a round Earth a long time before some backward Europeans decided the Earth was flat.</p>
<p>One of the biggest misconceptions is that "evolution" is the same as "evolution by natural selection". IT IS A FACT THAT ORGANISMS EVOLVED; there are millions of bones from the past that prove beyond any doubt,that organims have changed over the centuries. Thus it is a fact that "evolution" occured; organisms have changed! There were dinosaurs 60 million years ago, there are none now. Too many people confuse 'evolution' and 'evolution by means of natural selection'; the latter is a "theory". Thus 'evolution' is not a theory; it is a fact. thank you. please, spread the word.</p>
<p>Slickhitter, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Nothing in science can be definitively proven. People don't really understand what a theory is in terms of science. A hypothesis only becomes a theory when there are mounds of evidence that support it. Gravity is a theory and so is evolution. If you define a fact as something that is 100% infallible, then evolution isn't a fact.</p>
<p>You'd be out of your mind, however, to refute evolution similar to if you were to refute the existence of gravity in today's society.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
<p>when you start getting into "nothing can be proven....the spoon does not exist" you don't get anywhere. I totally agree with the above poster. It is a "fact" the organisms have changed over the past milena, thus it is a "fact" that organisms have "evolved", which means to change. Evolution has never been in question; it is a fact. Natural selection, is a theory.</p>
<p>Why evolution? Why not gravity? Or DNA theory? </p>
<p>Why do you believe DNA theory, but not evolution? Why do you believe atomic theory, but not evolution? Why do you take medicines that have been developed with evolution in mind, but put it up to some impossible scrutiny?</p>
<p>Does anyone know where I can view the GOP debate in its entirety? I had finals to study for and I couldn't watch it (also my roomie took the TV). =(</p>
<p>Hang on a second. These same advances in knowledge that you seem to bemoan have put airplanes in the sky. Something tells me that we have something of an inkling of how things work.</p>
<p>The same computer you're typing on right now is borne of advanced understanding of a variety of scientific fields.</p>
<p>Question: What do the 3 primary contenders for the democratic party believe? I tend to think they would say they believe in intelligent design. Is this wrong?</p>
<p>Well, just judging by the rates of religious belief in America - I think we can say that intelligent design (ie: creationism) is the common belief.</p>
<p>To be fair, Mr Payne, there are "degrees" of creationism. Some people believe in a 6000-year-old Earth with completely static species. Others believe in a billions-of-years-old Earth with constantly shifting species, courtesy of a divine sovereign. I'd like to see a good survey done in the US that actually attempts to separate these "creationist" groups by constituent factions.</p>