Hate to break this to you but science is not a person or a deity. It is as much of a process, or knowledge gain from that process than it is of anything else. I tend to trust the science process more than other processes but science is often wrong. One nice thing about scientific process is that it is open to correcting itself. Unfortunately many will take a finding that they like and will not be open to any new findings that contradict the original finding.

Anyone who blindly follow science especially following others conclusion of science are foolish. At least most of the so call religious nuts acknowledge they have blind faith. Many who blindly follow science do not.

I think it was an entirely relevant question, because anyone who is mired in that fevered swamp is clearly not up to leading a superpower in the 21st century.

Sadly, Tano, the prime audience for that debate probably feels largely the opposite...

Yeah, its hard for any of us to imagine. But reality is often stranger than one's imagination. I am constantly surprised at the things Republicans believe.

"Many don't believe that it's the sole explanation for human existence, though,"

That was not the question.

"...and "Evolution" is a code word for a belief system rather than just a virtually undisputed biological concept. "

And that is part of the problem. It is a "code word" perhaps in the fevered swamps of right-wing lala land, but for the rest of us, it is simply a word to describe the process of biological diversification over time.

I think it was an entirely relevant question, because anyone who is mired in that fevered swamp is clearly not up to leading a superpower in the 21st century.

I for one believe that the current theory has some things right but many things wrong as well. I couldn’t give a yes or no answer.

Science really doesn't care what you think.

However, you are quite correct about...

I thought Chris Matthews was a bit of a dick.

Though when is he not?

I know you only saw a half hour, but you should have stayed up to watch the rebroadcast because I missed the live session, but was able to watch the re-broad...

Any way, I actually agree that Fred Thompson should have been there, but it was good to see ALL of the ones that did show because it gave them a chance to state a little more about what they were about.

I have my thoughts about who I believe won that debate, but that's irrelevant when you consider what WAS said and what WASN'T said/avoided.

I hope that future debates will involve all the candidates of each party, but like the democrat debate, it was interesting to see what the knew and what they said.

The evolution question was B.S. It was take all or leave all question. I believe that the current theory of evolution was imply here and not just if evolution exist. I for one believe that the current theory has some things right but many things wrong as well. I couldn’t give a yes or no answer.

I thought Chris Matthews was a bit of a dick.

On a side note, which would make a worse President, someone who actually believes evolution doesn't happen, or someone who would publicly lie about his/her belief in a concrete fact just for popularity?

I'll go out on a limb here and say that if you honestly believe the entire universe is about 6000 years old, and that Methuselah was alive for almost 1/6th of that time, there's not many places in a modern society you fit in. Which makes the pandering that much more disturbing...

Jesus Christ, how can educated people still not believe in evolution?

The fact that this question was deemed appropriate for a debate speaks volumes about how out of touch the Republican party is at this point.

I think it's a combination of pandering to the base and a rather silly question. I can't imagine even the most religious person at the level of governor or Congressman doesn't believe in evolution per se. Many don't believe that it's the sole explanation for human existence, though, and "Evolution" is a code word for a belief system rather than just a virtually undisputed biological concept.