"Dawkins said it fills him with “despair†because evolution is a fact, not a belief, and 'you can't not believe in it unless you're ignorant.' He suspected some of the GOP candidates do accept evolution but are lying to appeal to their base." DING DING DING. Maybe some Republican candidates actually do believe in evolution and don't say so because they don't want to lose constituents in the mighty battle for president. And evolution is a fact! It's not a theory as some suggest. Like he said, believing any other way is just plain ignorance. A country cannot have a president who thinks such views as true, because it is intellectually damning. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/richard-dawkins-terribl...
Sounds like Richard Dawkins an old white man needs to check his privledge and stop microaggressing Ben Carson.
Maybe you should take your own advice. Dawkins is a prestigious ethologist, biologist and writer. Micro-aggressing? Really? One of the finest neurosurgeons in all the land thinks God created all humans. He also has some whacked out opinions on the Holocaust.
If so, I apologize James. This election has my fuckin' blood boiling. I can't take any more idiocy from the masses!!
'>http:////static.grscty.com//public/style_emoticons/default/smiley-smoking-bong.gif'>http:////static.grscty.com//public/style_emoticons/default/smiley-smoking-bong.gif</a></p></blockquote></a> Said the guy with his eggs in the Bernie basket. Roll my damn eyes.
Okay now your macroaggressing. I'm just doing my part to make the internet a safe space for women and minorities.//static.grscty.com//public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.png
Be careful that she signs an affirmative assent contract beforehand that she says yes throughout every stage and has no regrets come morning and that she has had no alcohol or she'll accuse you of rape.
see one of them problems nowdays is when a group dosnt agree with another group the first group will attack the seconds groups character instead of arguing over what they belive and and more importantly, why and what lead that person to believe the way they do. they dont want to understand the other person and they dont want to leave themselves open to change
If you don't believe in evolution then you can't be trusted to make decisions based on evidence and fact patterns. I can understand maybe not believing in abiogenesis because it's still a relatively debatable area and the science isn't cut and dry. But evolution is a very real observable phenomenon. Part of the issues is that people think that abiogenesis is a key component of evolution but it's actually a separate theory really from evolution and attempts to explain the origin of organisms. Evolution is real and well documented. Abiogenesis has some decent evidence to prove its existence but not nearly as definitive as evolution.
People can argue if it leads to something fallible and honest: http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argume...
I'm sure there are some republicans who deny evolution publicly while believing it personally, but keep it to themselves so not to offend their base. There's not much more nobility in that than there is in actually not believing, or shall I say, understanding why it's true. But Ben Carson really is just a fool/tool. Have you read his theories about the great pyramids and aliens? Can we say cuckoo?
Call Carson what you want but dude was the first person to seperate conjoined twins, his opinions may be different from others(gee what a shocker) but the man is no fool.
Just because you're smart in one area of life doesn't mean you can't be a fool in others. The man has suggested a flat tax similar to the bible, which is inherently regressive in nature and no developed country utilizes in this day and age. He's suggested that evolution is a hoax created by the devil if I'm remembering correctly. He's shown that he doesn't understand the difference between the debt limit and the deficit which is a very scary thing for someone running for president. I'm not saying he's dumb but he's clearly out of his depths when talking about certain economic issues.
Aren't they all? Not a single one has any reasonable economic plan at all. It's taboo to even bring up sound economics, sustainability, reducing the debt or, good forbid, decreasing government spending (gasp), in this clown show we call a government. I know more about the surface of Pluto than any one running knows about real economics. It's really quite embarrassing if you are a nationalist.