This is a tragically unfortunate statement for a number of reasons... not least of which is the fact that you don't really have a good grasp on what the debate is about. Evolution in no way deals with 'how life got started', and claiming that it does only betrays your ignorance of the issue. Evolution deals with the processes that take place once life already has started and describes how life persists and diversifies over the course of time... as an evidence-based, testable hypothesis, of course.
And even if it were concerned with how life got started, judging someone on their acceptance of different theories would be no more 'discrimination' than judging someone who theorizes the sky is green; life got started somehow, in one particulare way, and surely you're not suggesting that multiple theories have equal validity? ONE explanation MUST be correct, and the others must be wrong. It's just harder for people to grasp evolution as intuitively as, say, the theory of gravity, because evolution takes place over much longer time scales and happens to run contrary to some very established dogmatic worldviews. Considering the depth of knowledge about evolution that you've already displayed, it's no surprise you think of facts as opinions and evidence based analysis as discrimination.
Yes, you're entitled to your 'opinion', even if that's proclaiming that the sky is indeed green. But like many people have said before, willingness to abandon reason and willfully ignore reality exposes a very pronounced lack of judgment in that area. Sure, it probably won't affect many of the day-to-day decisions a leader makes, but it suggests that lapses in judgment may easily strike again. Is that really what I'm looking for in a president?
Slashdot Mirror
This is a tragically unfortunate statement for a number of reasons... not least of which is the fact that you don't really have a good grasp on what the debate is about. Evolution in no way deals with 'how life got started', and claiming that it does only betrays your ignorance of the issue. Evolution deals with the processes that take place once life already has started and describes how life persists and diversifies over the course of time... as an evidence-based, testable hypothesis, of course. And even if it were concerned with how life got started, judging someone on their acceptance of different theories would be no more 'discrimination' than judging someone who theorizes the sky is green; life got started somehow, in one particulare way, and surely you're not suggesting that multiple theories have equal validity? ONE explanation MUST be correct, and the others must be wrong. It's just harder for people to grasp evolution as intuitively as, say, the theory of gravity, because evolution takes place over much longer time scales and happens to run contrary to some very established dogmatic worldviews. Considering the depth of knowledge about evolution that you've already displayed, it's no surprise you think of facts as opinions and evidence based analysis as discrimination. Yes, you're entitled to your 'opinion', even if that's proclaiming that the sky is indeed green. But like many people have said before, willingness to abandon reason and willfully ignore reality exposes a very pronounced lack of judgment in that area. Sure, it probably won't affect many of the day-to-day decisions a leader makes, but it suggests that lapses in judgment may easily strike again. Is that really what I'm looking for in a president?