Saturday, March 1, 2008

Huckabee Discusses Evolution And Gay Marriage With Tyra Banks

http://www.gabbybabble.com/2008/03/mike-huckabee-talks-about-homosexuality.html

http://www.duckydoestv.com/2008/03/01/watch-tyra-banks-interview-mike-huckabee-video/


Perhaps you should prepare to shake your head and wonder more at the persistence of skepticism about evolution. But, I find it highly questionable. And, it isn't as though I'm a semi-illiterate who has not read the relevant material. I am confident that I am more familiar with the material and the thinking on both sides of the question than over 99% of the American public.

If I found the evidence for macro-evolution across species from a common ancestry) at all compelling, I would tweak my habits of interpreting data and go on. I understand the psychological force of the consensus of confession in the popular American culture and the consequential majority of textbooks, but I don't find the evidence compelling at all.

The evolutionist confession is not one driven by the data, as often suggested. It is not a scientific (empirical) conclusion. It is a philosophic predisposition largely driven by the force of consensus.

Given the pervasiveness of that disposition in the culture, I believe it is essential that the theory be taught in schools. An American who doesn’t understand that is uneducated and culturally illiterate in a very critical way. But, they should teach the details of the metaphysical belief in macroevolution, while maintaining the bare modesty that recognizes that it IS, in fact, a metaphysical confession and not a "scientific" conclusion (a "fact")

I also voted for Huckabee. He is simply the most able and thoughtful candidate to have appeared in the contest. And, I mean "thoughtful" in both senses of the term: in terms of ideas and in terms of consideration and engagement of the broad spectrum of Americans.

I disagree with amending The Constitution of the United States on marriage, though. Not because I think the institution by the state of "gay marriage" is a good idea: I don't. I think rather, because I think the federal government ought to have nothing to do with it. If we concede that the federal government has the jurisdiction to define marriage one way today, we concede that it has the jurisdiction to define marriage another way, tomorrow. Governments don't determine what marriage is. But, let anyone, with some modesty about how often and how much it may change, determine to whom they may assign the benefits of personal relationship, relative to benefits, contracts, etc.

I'll get to John McCain, next.

12 comments:

BobC, Margate, Florida said...

Whenever I see somebody complaining about what they call macroevolution, I know the person is a creationist who believes each species was magically created. The creationists don't understand that biologists can see the entire history of life in DNA. It's a fact that all life evolved and all life is related. It's a fact we are most closely related to chimpanzee apes. The same method used for paternity testing in humans is used to test for evolutionary relationships. Today it's impossible for an educated person to deny the basic facts of evolution. Huckabee is not qualified to be president because he knows less about science than many grammar school students. I don't expect a president to be an expert at biology, but Huckabee knows nothing about it. We are descendants of ancient apes and fishes. The only people who don't accept these facts are people who are either ignorant of the science of evolution, or they have some religious boundary that makes them reject scientific evidence. America is the only Western nation that has this problem. Christian fundamentalists, if they want to live in the 21st century, have got to educate themselves. They look really bad when they claim scientific facts supported by powerful evidence are not facts. Denying evolution is a lot like denying the fact our planet circles the sun. It makes a person look uneducated.

Anonymous said...

If Tyra Banks isn't an example of the slipshod and pragmatic way evolution contructs lfe I don't know what is! She is also a bad example of anything being intelligently designed.

Anonymous said...

Huckabee's vision for this country is one of a backwards-thinking theocracy. It's pitiful that so many people share his views. And bobc is right.

Denying evolution is like denying gravity. Nobody's shown HOW gravity works yet but that doesn't negate its effects. You wouldn't be so skeptical about evolution if it didn't threaten your backwards world view.

At one point, geocentricism threatened the Church's world view and look what that got Galileo. The universe is not geocentric. Christians have at least accepted that. Now they just need to realize it is not anthropocentric as well.

Larry Perrault said...

Fellows,

You can believe or not that I am ignorant of science. I won't cry about it. I understand your disposition, though I don't hold it. But, you not only don't understand my position, you don't even try to and make assertions about my motivation that you are utterly ignorant of. The details of debate aside, it is rather pathetic to live among so many people who are perfectly rational and educated and if you reject their conclusions, refuse to even entertain the necessary thought experiments to attempt to understand them. Rather, you you ignorantly conjecture about their motivations and level of "knowledge," and thereby cut yourself off entirely from a substantial segment of your culture which incidentally may be the most literate and information-bloated culture in the history of the planet. That's not too effective, it seems to me.

Returning to the debate, we can quickly pigeonhole the ghetto of your mind if we can get a direct answer to the question of whether you seriously believe, as you say, that only uneducated people and NO scientists, find the case for macroevolution to be at best inconclusive and at worst unpersuasive. If you DO believe that demonstrable falsehood, it's plain to me who is uneducated about the facts.

Unlike your apparent disposition, I understand that your beliefs are constrained not by the facts, but by a pre-empirical dogma which excludes any explanation which is at least theoretically (not actually) empirically verifiable. I don't disdain you for that. I pity you.

As for DNA, it is not accurate that the science is is parallel in its dispositions to accord the facts of human parenthood and the "fact" of common ancestry. And by the way, it reflects your a priori dogma that you refer to "what they call macroevolution." I did not invent the terms that identify two distinct ideas, namely that 1) microevolution is an uncontroversial fact that is demonstrate in empirical experience and is suggested by common-sense. Macroevolurion across species is neither, unless you are confined to a philosophically naturalist outlook and/or popular culture consensus, in which case, anthropogenic global-warming might be another "scientifically established fact."

In fact, you are incorrect about what motivates my skepticism. As I said, if the case for macroevolution were persuasive to me, I would accept it, tweak a few of my operational ideas, and go on. But in fact, without the constraint of a naturalist positivism, I find the evidence very poor. I understand your (self-imposed) intellectual prison, however.

To remark on the DNA similarities of chimpanzees and chimpanzees is something like observing the structural similarities of a Ferrari and a Ford pickup. Yes, they both have 4 wheels, a steering wheel, an internal combustion engine, and a temperature control system, among myriad other things. But, a Ferrari is not a Ford of any sort, nor are they engineered the same, or do they exist for the same purposes.

The DNA is the structural blueprint of biological organisms. And, humans and chimpanzees both have 2 legs, two eyes, 2 arms, and myriad other life-support facilities. But, a chimpanzee is not a human and a human has capacities and obligations (including ideals of both learning and empathy) which chimpanzees do not.

Frankly, if you cannot even deign to imagine the presumptions of another perspective, there is no point to carrying on a conversation.

Larry Perrault said...

Fellows,

You can believe or not that I am ignorant of science. I won't cry about it. I understand your disposition, though I don't hold it. But, you not only don't understand my position, you don't even try to and make assertions about my motivation that you are utterly ignorant of. The details of debate aside, it is rather pathetic to live among so many people who are perfectly rational and educated and if you reject their conclusions, refuse to even entertain the necessary thought experiments to attempt to understand them. Rather, you you ignorantly conjecture about their motivations and level of "knowledge," and thereby cut yourself off entirely from a substantial segment of your culture which incidentally may be the most literate and information-bloated culture in the history of the planet. That's not too effective, it seems to me.

Returning to the debate, we can quickly pigeonhole the ghetto of your mind if we can get a direct answer to the question of whether you seriously believe, as you say, that only uneducated people and NO scientists, find the case for macroevolution to be at best inconclusive and at worst unpersuasive. If you DO believe that demonstrable falsehood, it's plain to me who is uneducated about the facts.

Unlike your apparent disposition, I understand that your beliefs are constrained not by the facts, but by a pre-empirical dogma which excludes any explanation which is at least theoretically (not actually) empirically verifiable. I don't disdain you for that. I pity you.

As for DNA, it is not accurate that the science is is parallel in its dispositions to accord the facts of human parenthood and the "fact" of common ancestry. And by the way, it reflects your a priori dogma that you refer to "what they call macroevolution." I did not invent the terms that identify two distinct ideas, namely that 1) microevolution is an uncontroversial fact that is demonstrate in empirical experience and is suggested by common-sense. Macroevolurion across species is neither, unless you are confined to a philosophically naturalist outlook and/or popular culture consensus, in which case, anthropogenic global-warming might be another "scientifically established fact."

In fact, you are incorrect about what motivates my skepticism. As I said, if the case for macroevolution were persuasive to me, I would accept it, tweak a few of my operational ideas, and go on. But in fact, without the constraint of a naturalist positivism, I find the evidence very poor. I understand your (self-imposed) intellectual prison, however.

To remark on the DNA similarities of chimpanzees and chimpanzees is something like observing the structural similarities of a Ferrari and a Ford pickup. Yes, they both have 4 wheels, a steering wheel, an internal combustion engine, and a temperature control system, among myriad other things. But, a Ferrari is not a Ford of any sort, nor are they engineered the same, or do they exist for the same purposes.

The DNA is the structural blueprint of biological organisms. And, humans and chimpanzees both have 2 legs, two eyes, 2 arms, and myriad other life-support facilities. But, a chimpanzee is not a human and a human has capacities and obligations (including ideals of both learning and empathy) which chimpanzees do not.

Frankly, if you cannot even deign to imagine the presumptions of another perspective, there is no point to carrying on a conversation.

Anonymous said...

Larry said: "Frankly, if you cannot even deign to imagine the presumptions of another perspective, there is no point to carrying on a conversation."

You are correct, there is "no point to carrying on a conversation" with a person so lacking science education as to compare cars with living organisms and their DNA similarities.

Larry, enroll in a college biology course. Without basic biology knowledge, talking to you about evolution is like talking to a 4-year old about why the leaves of trees a green. Since you will not, there is no point to carrying on the conversation.

(Sorry to post as Anonymous, I just don't have time to get an account.)

Quiana said...

Good post.

Anonymous said...

dating personals beaufort sc http://loveepicentre.com/testimonials.php halo dating 101 lesson4

Anonymous said...

[url=http://loveepicentre.com/][img]http://loveepicentre.com/uploades/photos/9.jpg[/img][/url]
russell peters and sunny leone dating [url=http://loveepicentre.com/success_stories.php]dating pakistan indian divorces[/url] uk speed dating
sci fi dating [url=http://loveepicentre.com/]benjy bronk online dating service[/url] kelly monaco dating
the code h dating [url=http://loveepicentre.com/testimonials.php]moca website for dating[/url] black christian online dating

Anonymous said...

900 page ebook disney http://audiobookscollection.co.uk/es/Jonathan-Anderson/m65812/ time spike ebook flint [url=http://audiobookscollection.co.uk/Area-Efficient-VLSI-Computation/p194560/]successful writing at work ebook[/url] oracle 9i programming ebook

Anonymous said...

college dating edu hazard internet university [url=http://freeinternetdating.info/romantic/romantic-call-mp3]romantic call mp3[/url] craig luchin dating
online hispanic dating http://freeinternetdating.info/romantic/romantic-cabins-on-the-lake who is joe manganiello dating
free on line dating hispanic [url=http://freeinternetdating.info/romantic/romantic-cancun-vacations]teen internet dating[/url] dating phone south bend indiana

Anonymous said...

dating british men http://loveepicentre.com/contact/ wives dating other men
ukrainian women dating marriage [url=http://loveepicentre.com/success_stories/]asian dating frankfurt[/url] dating genital warts
foreigner visiting bulgaria dating bulgarian women [url=http://loveepicentre.com/advice/]conservative dating website[/url] venezuela dating and marriage [url=http://loveepicentre.com/user/missy76/]missy76[/url] who is topher grace dating