I'm not claiming creationists or anti-science goons can't be good leaders by any means. It's just a very serious downside when I'm looking at prospective candidates.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Feb 12 2015 10:36pm

These are all quotes from you:

"If you don't accept evolution your decision making is fundamentally flawed."
"Anyone that doesn't accept evolution is fundamentally irrational because they are oblivious to their cognitive failings."
"But the important point is that anyone whose holistic worldview is so radically inaccurate cannot be trusted to make informed decisions."
"Darwin's idea is the most important in human history, bar none, it is crucial to being an educated person to accept it first and foremost."

Those are very strong words and definitely imply that they are incapable of being a good leader. After all, part of being a good leader is good decision making.

A good leader represent well the population, if the population thinks that earth was created 6000 years ago in 1 week, then they deserve to have a leader with same beliefs.

The same way most people do it, by weaseling their way around giving a clear answer.
Notice how he says that life "could have" started as it says in scripture.
Would have been a good response from a politician trying to navigate a crappy field, but in the end it's just that, a politician's answer.


This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 12 2015 10:54pm

I stand by all of those statements, I didn't mean them as absolutes. I also think being taller than 5'4" is a pseudo-requirement for being a star NBA player but there are exceptions.

A YEC or someone who doesn't believe in evolution shows a lack of ability for analytical thinking. Obviously there are still YEC's who could be good political decision makers, but they're far less likely to be than a science-aware person.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Feb 12 2015 11:01pm

I think that is a fair way of handling the issue. That being said, Walker is a fucknut.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I'd argue though that people who are raised in religious environments AND lack the ability to think critically end up as YECs. However, that's not the only way of becoming a YEC. I think when someone is a YEC, it should raise a flag and you should investigate it further. Once you do that though, you can make a better decision on whether or not they are qualified. Basically, I'm saying that just being a YEC alone isn't sufficient for disqualifying someone.

Fair enough, I would agree, but they better have some serious upsides.

It would be a positive in general elections but it would be a negative in primaries, that's why they do this. It's the price the party has to pay for embracing the right-wing fringe just to get elected in the first place. This was the inevitable consequence of turning the anti-intellectualism dial to 11.

That said, the party at least has an out in Jeb Bush. He's basically coming forward and saying I'll save you from yourselves if you just line up behind me. He won't kowtow and pander to the absurd degree that Mitt Romney did, so if they nominate him they'll have a credible standard-bearer with an opportunity to earn back some favor that they've lost over the past 10 years during their considerable lurch to the right.

This post was edited by Pollster on Feb 12 2015 11:50pm

yes... and rand paul strongly alluded to vaccines could cause autism... i don't be voting for rand paul cause of that...