LOLL.

Ok so I let's say I need to determine what sorts of ethical policies produce the best results. My scientific and economic advisors can give me input about how a particular policy will affect economic behavior. They know it will affect economic behavior in this way because of their understanding of neuroeconomics and evolutionary psychology and sociology. All life sciences and social sciences rest fundamentally on evolutionary theory, and all (or at least most) political decisions rest on being informed about life sciences and social sciences.

Most uninformed and incorrect economic thoeries rest on e.g. assuming humans are rational decision making agents and this tends to stem from misunderstanding (or denying altogether) evolutionary psychology.

Even if not for the explicit influence it has on particular decisions, but the important point is that anyone whose holistic worldview is so radically inaccurate cannot be trusted to make informed decisions.

The only way it would ever influence the decision making process is in dealing with antibiotic resistant bacteria in the health care system. Its safe to say no one really has to care except them.

I think the main point is that if someone doesn't believe in evolution they are uneducated, unintelligent, lying or have some serious flaw in their ability to process information. Any of these qualities, in my eyes, disqualify someone from being a leader of a society.

I would be very unlikely to vote for someone based on a single issue but there are quite a few reasons I would not vote for someone based on a single issue.

...I would answer thusly - " My education has led me to believe that evolution is the most likely explanation for our advancement as a species and my faith in God has led me to believe that all life could have started just as it is recorded in Scripture " .

A politician has to represent his constituents. The ignorant masses of American people are the people he is trying to represent, so obviously he has to say things they want to hear. You might want to hear your politicians agree with the current science, but many others do not.

The fact he can't so do it proves it does.

Which would prove you to have a serious case of cognitive dissonance. How can someone hold two directly conflicting beliefs?

I would be even less likely to vote for someone who is possibly schizophrenic.



Anyone who doesn't believe evolution to be a scientific fact is too stupid to deserve a vote.

Well, make a thread blaming Athens for inventing democracy.

But don't blame Scott Walker for playing the game according to the rules he was given.

Mike Huckabee believes that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old and that it was created in a week....are you going to tell me he was a poor governor in Arkansas? He was voted as one of 5 best governors by Time Magazine FYI...

Interesting how we have evidence of leaders making good decisions despite being Young Earth Creationists. In science, we tend to reevaluate ourselves when presented with conflicting evidence. Will you do the same?