The Republicans Still Don’t Get It

During the first Republican presidential debate, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee all said they did not believe in evolution.

Brownback later displayed further ignorance about evolution when writing a pathetic op-ed for the New York Times.

So perhaps you thought those candidates learned their lesson before last night’s Republican debate? Not so much.

This time, it was Mike Huckabee who showed us why we should ignore things that come out of his mouth.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth,” said Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister. “A person either believes that God created the process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own.”

Huckabee also said that if Americans “want a president who doesn’t believe in God, there’s probably plenty of choices. But if I’m selected as president of this country, they’ll have one who believes in those words that God did create.”

…

Huckabee later added, “If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it.”

Actually, there are not “plenty of choices” for a presidential candidate who does not believe in God.

There’s not even one single candidate who would dare say he/she doesn’t believe in God.

And that’s thanks to Huckabee and others like him who cast atheists in such a negative light.

On a side note, John McCain also stepped in to show that he supports ignorance (and pandering to the religious base):

“I admire [Huckabee’s] description, because I hold that view,” said McCain, an Episcopalian. “There’s no doubt in my mind that the hand of God was in what we are today. And I do believe that we are unique, and [I] believe that God loves us.”

Later on, Huckabee made the dumbest statement I’ve heard in the debates so far:

And Huckabee made it clear that he did not appreciate the [evolution] question, either, calling it unfair.

“It’s interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president,” Huckabee said. “I’m not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I’m asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States.”

Imagine if he had said “I’m not planning on writing the curriculum for a third-grade math book. I’m asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States.”

He would’ve looked like an idiot. (Well, even more so.) But more people would’ve understood. If this guy can’t do simple math, why should we elect him president?

However, when Huckabee admits scientific “illiteracy,” people just seem to shrug it off. Why isn’t there a bigger uproar, considering the importance of science to our nation’s status in the world?

If Huckabee doesn’t even understand eighth-grade science, much less evolution, he does not have the brain power to be the most powerful person in the country.

I mean, hell, look at the consequences with our current president, who thinks the “jury’s still out” on evolution.

[tags]atheist, atheism, Republican, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, evolution, New York Times, God, John McCain, Episcopalian[/tags]

"I'm not even particularly angry at their parents. I have the same feeling that I ..."

democommiescrazierbrother

MAGA Cultist Pastor Screams at Church ..."

"IIRC she refused to even file for candidacy last time; this allowed her to keep ..."

eric

Sarah Palin: I Would Run for ..."

"Shhhh, what was that???"

larry parker

Woman Injured After Falling 20 Ft. ..."

"The kids of course will likely be adopted by people who shared their parents views ..."

Maria

ugh, I really hope this guy doesn’t get elected president. As for Mcain; this is surprising: I have heard him say he believes in evolution before. I’m wondering if he isn’t saying this to kiss up to the evangelicals to get their vote. They’re having trouble agreeing on who to vote for, I would imagine each Republican candidate is going to try and get their vote however he can. It’s amazing how low some politicians will sink. I just recently read that there is a rumor that Karl Rove might be an atheist-does anyone know if there is any truth to it?

http://atheistrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/04/karl-rove-is-atheist-more-evidence-and.html
Darryl

The greatest shock and disappointment of my life was the realization that my country–the one that was so highly touted by my school teachers; the one that I was taught to love and laud–consists in part of people like these Presidential candidates, and that these kinds of people define the character and course of my country. I guess I’m really just disappointed with humans. How can it be that we Americans can start with such lofty principles, and do such great things, and then actually spend time considering these moral and intellectual failures for our leaders.
Bart

I’m so embarrased that Mike is from my state.
Dr X

“Huckabee later added, “If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it.”

It couldn’t be clearer to me that Huckabee is the descendant of “a” primate, but if Hukabee wants to believe he is the descendant of a pile of dirt, he is is certainly welcome to do it.
Kelly

McCain is totally pandering, which is stupid. The religious right know he’s not “one of them”. So why bother pandering to them? Be honest and try to get the votes of the conservatives that use reason and logic to make their decisions.
I’d have to say, if McCain or Guiliani end up with the nomination, that would have to be quite a blow to the Christian conservatives. I also have to admit that would put a smile on my face. Not nice, but honest…
Tina B.

Hey, I have an idea…keep religion out of politics. What harm could it do?
Looney

To be fair, the muddled religion of the Republicans is preferable to the feigned religion of the Democrats.
Tina B.

Sorry for the extra post….”. But if I’m selected as president of this country, they’ll have one who believes in those words that God did create.” That’s a scary thought.
Mike C

I appreciated the words of Senator John Edwards at the Sojourners Presidential Forum Monday night about this same question:

“I believe in evolution… I think it’s perfectly possible to make our faith, my faith belief system consistent with a recognition that there is real science out there and scientific evidence of evolution. I don’t think those things are inconsistent. I think a belief in God and a belief in Christ, in my case, is not in any way inconsistent with that.”
David M.

Here is the thing that upsets me the most…People like Huckabee are speaking for ALL Christians, or religions. I am a Christian, currently studying to be a Minister, and I believe in evolution. I don’t believe that we as humans evolved from monkeys and things like that, but I believe in the concept of a species evolving, changing, to fit their environment. To many “big name” Christians are speaking for the whole, and I can’t stand that. They make it sound like Christianity and science can’t co-exist, but they can. Believe or not, God created science, too. I just hope you out there do not hold so many things you hear on TV against Christ and His followers that are trying to TRULY follow Him.
olvlzl, no ism, no ist

Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee all said they did not believe in evolution.

I kind of find that encouraging. If those three stooges came out for it I might start wondering what was wrong with it.

I heard that Huckabee said he wasn’t descended from a primate. Which, as a primate, I’m glad to know.
Aj

To be fair, the muddled religion of the Republicans is preferable to the feigned religion of the Democrats.

To whom is the muddled religion of the Republicans favourable? Certainly not the secular. Although they’re probably feigning it like the Democrats, when it’s time for them to choose between evolution and the Bible, they don’t refuse vaccines for their children.
Joe Singleton

Sometimes this argument strikes me as completely asinine. If you look at the over-arcing story in the bible, you see a pattern. Process. Everything from human history, to personal faith, everything is evolving, maturing, in process. Why is it so hard to believe that God would create nature to be any different? Even if you read the Genesis account completely literally, it is process. I mean, it is process. 1st, God created, THEN God created, and so on. Evolution puts forth this process. Seems sensible to me. A good introductory book to read on this subject is Brian McClaren’s The Story We Find Ourselves In, from his A New Kind of Christian trilogy. No matter what faith, these are great books to spark conversation. This argument being kept alive by our religious and political leaders is NOT the view of all Christians, evangelical or otherwise.
John P

More Brownbacking . I don’t think we’ve seen the last of it either.
Daniel

I submit that the republicans are typically more outspoken about their religion than democrats and are assing it up with their idiotic evolution stances. However, where was your coverage of the democrats jesus love-in wherein hillary declared her faith? It was the same event in which john edwards is doing his best to sound as religious as possible with his declaration that he sins and prays every day because “I have a deep and abiding love for my Lord, Jesus Christ”.

As an atheist are you willing to give a pass to the democrats simply because they proclaim a belief in evolution?
James T

I’ve gotta say that even as a Christian, guys like Huckabee and Brownback scare the crap out of me, especially when they talk like this. Yet another stunning example of how we Christians think we have every answer to every question perfectly worked out. The logic here is also scary…They are basically saying “I’m still going to believe what I choose to believe despite the glaring evidence in front of my face.” What does that lead to in their everyday decision-making based upon logic? I’ll put it this way: I would hate to be falsely accused of murder with one of these guys on the jury. I could see them deciding on the basis of; “Never mind the evidence! Does he seem guilty to me?”

This is my first visit to this site…very well done, by the way.
FriendlyAtheist

As an atheist are you willing to give a pass to the democrats simply because they proclaim a belief in evolution?

Fair question. The reason I don’t really care when the Democrats talk about their faith is because I understand that some level of religious pandering is to be expected. I’m not upset with the Republican candidates because they’re religious, and I wouldn’t have cared so much if all they said is they believe in God/trust in Jesus/whatever.

I’m upset because they’re saying they don’t understand science and seem ok with that. The Democrats might be religious, but it doesn’t affect what they do (and how they would lead) the way it would Republicans. So the GOP deserves the attacks.
Allison

If Huckabee doesn’t even understand eighth-grade science, much less evolution, he does not have the brain power to be the most powerful person in the country.

THANK YOU. This is exactly what passed through my mind when I read the CNN article this morning. Why is this supposed to be a good thing for him to claim, I wonder? Blech.
Karen

I am a Christian, currently studying to be a Minister, and I believe in evolution. I don’t believe that we as humans evolved from monkeys and things like that, but I believe in the concept of a species evolving, changing, to fit their environment.

Hi David, and welcome! Darwin’s theory states that all species currently alive today evolved from common ancestors. That means, specifically, that homo sapiens and today’s primates split from a common evolutionary line many, many years ago. The theory has been hugely bolstered just in the last few years by our new ability to sequence the genetic code, which explains perfectly why we share something like 99% of our genes with our closest living relatives, chimpanzees.

You can get lots more great information about evolution at talkorigins.org.

I heard that Huckabee said he wasn’t descended from a primate. Which, as a primate, I’m glad to know.

Yes, it was quite a relief to the rest of us primates that we don’t have to claim him a cousin! 🙂

One of the commentators on CNN last night made an interesting point. When JFK was asked about his Catholicism, which was an issue in his presidential campaign, he made a speech reinforcing the separation of church and state. When Romney has been asked about his Mormonism, he reinforces how important it is for the country to have a religious leader and then blurs the line between Mormon and Christian doctrine.

A sad commentary, in my view, on how far we’ve come in the last half century.
John P

Does anyone else have a problem with the use of the word “believe” in the same sentence with the word “evolution” or “science”?

Other than, of course “I believe that these presidential candidates who don’t understand evolution are ignoramuses, unqualified for the position they are seeking.” 🙂
Mike C

Does anyone else have a problem with the use of the word “believe” in the same sentence with the word “evolution” or “science”?

Nope. It’s the appropriate philosophical word. “Believe” simply means to affirm the truth of a proposition. Do you affirm that evolution is true? Then you believe in evolution. “Belief” is not an exclusively religious term.
Mike C

To be fair, the muddled religion of the Republicans is preferable to the feigned religion of the Democrats.

With the exception of Hillary, the Democrats actually came across as rather sincere about their faith to me the other night.
John P

Hi Mike

I still have a problem with it, despite the narrow definition you’re giving the term. When people like Huckabee and Brownback use the term they imply that they do not have faith that evolution is true. It is a religious statement for them. Look at the debate last night you blogged about. It was asked, and answered, in the context of questions about their faith. Their religious faith. They are making religious statements when they say that they don’t believe in evolution, rather than that they don’t believe evolution is true. The latter implies that they looked at the evidence and found it wanting. The former implies that they didn’t even bother, because they think it contradicts what they do beleive in.

Maybe it’s a stylistic much-ado-about-nothing, but somehow it grates on my ears when I hear it.
Mriana

I want to point out, that McCain is appears to be a Conservative Episcopalian. He does not hold the liberal and/or progessive thoughts of other Episcopalians- ie Spong, Schori, Robinson (the ordain openly gay Bishop who both Spong and Schori got into the priesthood, knowing he was gay), the list goes on and on. There are Humanists and Religious Humanists among the more liberal Episcopal Churches. IMHO, McCain is either trying to keep his job and cover his true views OR he is a Conservative Episcopalian. The more liberal, progressive, and/or Humanistic Episcopalians believe HIGHLY in separation of Church and State, Human Rights, and human dignity. They might not have the same view of God though and some are non-theists/atheists.

McCain is a very poor example of the Episcopal Church, IMHO. It was the behaviours of people like him, who stirred up problems because they do not like the direction the liberals were taking the church, that I left the Episcopal Church in favour of a place that I could express being a Humanist freely. Spong maybe able to deal with it, but I can’t. Then again, I am even more left than he is.
Kelly

As an atheist are you willing to give a pass to the democrats simply because they proclaim a belief in evolution?

I don’t have a problem with anyone-Democrat or Republican-that has a faith in God. What I have a problem with are people that are easily swayed to blur the line between church and state, and that deny years of scientific evidence for evolution. It’s very rare that a Democrat would do either of those things.
My problem with McCain is that he has condemned conservative Christian leaders in the past, but now he seems to have flip flopped and is pandering to the people that hold those leaders in esteem.
From the 2000 Presidential campaign:
Risking a religious brawl within Republican ranks, John McCain condemned Pat Robertson and other prominent Christian conservatives Monday as “agents of intolerance” who “shame our faith, our party and our country.”

In a blistering speech delivered in Robertson’s hometown of Virginia Beach, Va., the Arizona senator expressed contempt for Robertson and televangelist Jerry Falwell, two influential pillars of the Christian conservative movement. He dismissed rival George W. Bush as a “Pat Robertson Republican” who panders to religious extremists.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000229/ai_n10578394
Chris

Dialectical materialism, fear-based supernaturalism, dialectical materialism, fear-based supernaturalism. And on and on and on and on.
Darryl

Dialectical materialism, fear-based supernaturalism, dialectical materialism, fear-based supernaturalism. And on and on and on and on.

False dilemma.
Maria

I appreciated the words of Senator John Edwards at the Sojourners Presidential Forum Monday night about this same question:

“I believe in evolution… I think it’s perfectly possible to make our faith, my faith belief system consistent with a recognition that there is real science out there and scientific evidence of evolution. I don’t think those things are inconsistent. I think a belief in God and a belief in Christ, in my case, is not in any way inconsistent with that.”

Good quote. I agree. I think everyone on here who has said Mcain is pandering to the religious right is right. But they do know he’s not one of them; he said he believed in evolution before-so I don’t know how far he thinks he’s going to get with this. I do hope whoever wins stops giving them special favors the way Dubya has been doing.
Darryl

Is anyone besides me bored and annoyed with Huckabee’s canned one-liners? The first one or two were fine, but now I’m waiting for them, and they’re so disappointing. If it takes clever quips to get noticed, he ought to bow out now. Typical preacher stuff: all glitter and no fire.
Maria

I think if a candidate is asked, they can say that they have “faith” of some kind. JFK did, but he reiterated that he believed in separation of church and state. What bothers me is it’s b/c much more than. Now you have to “believe in this, believe in that”, pander to the creationists-it’s really turned into a circus. Personally, I really don’t care what a candidates religious views are or if they have any. I care about what they say about the ecomony, the environment, health care, the war, etc. As long as whoever is running doesn’t want or plan to take away my right to worship as I choose (I don’t mean special rights I mean normal rights), I really don’t care what they do or don’t believe.
Chris

Did anyone happen to catch Pat Robertson’s bizare mathematical rant yesterday on the “700 Club?” The United States is four hundred years old, and it’s been forty years since Israel’s 6 Day War, and everything God likes to do is in forties, so the end is near…and it’s all clear if you just know how to see what’s in the Bible, right? Of course, after talking about the end of the world, Pat segues into something completely mindless like “Five Things Your Husband Won’t Tell You”. Nice. Thanks, Pat.
Mriana

Chris said,

June 6, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Did anyone happen to catch Pat Robertson’s bizare mathematical rant yesterday on the “700 Club?” The United States is four hundred years old, and it’s been forty years since Israel’s 6 Day War, and everything God likes to do is in forties, so the end is near…and it’s all clear if you just know how to see what’s in the Bible, right? Of course, after talking about the end of the world, Pat segues into something completely mindless like “Five Things Your Husband Won’t Tell You”. Nice. Thanks, Pat.

Surely you knew the man is a nutter, don’t you?
Mike C

Hi Mike

I still have a problem with it, despite the narrow definition you’re giving the term.

In all technicality, my definition of “belief” is the broader one. Your definition of belief as a statement of religious conviction is the narrower one in that it is simply one type of belief.

But it’s an inconsequential point and you are entitled to let it get on your nerves if you like. 🙂
John P

Granted. Mine was narrow. But that’s the point. Huckabee and Brownback are not merely denying “the truth the the proposition” we call evolution. They are making a narrow religious statement. One of faith.

As a matter of faith, one doesn’t believe in evolution. It’s not a proposition, it’s a scientific theory, one accepted everywhere but in church.

But they’re my nerves, and they are not the only ones who misuse the language, so I guess I’ll have to get used to it. 😉
Darryl

The years of over-the-top, lying, poisonous, mean-spirited hyper-partisanship by the Fox news/Hannity/Limbaugh talk-radio nuts, and by the despicable Republican ‘leaders’ in Congress (you know, those corrupt hypocrites that backed the war and the President all the way, name-called the Dems as “cut and run” Democrats, embraced Karl Rove and all his dirty tricks, participated in or covered up scandals, lied through their teeth, and put power and the retention of it above the People’s interests), as they pandered to and made a patsy of the stupid religious fundamentalists, are coming back to haunt them. I know the Bible too:

You reap what you sow.

The Republican Presidential candidates are having to out-Jesus each other; and poor Romney–he’s the ideal Republican candidate in any other time: he’s good looking, tall, accomplished, an ex-governor, a rich and successful businessman, he’s got more money than anybody else, he’s willing to pander to whomever is necessary–he’s perfect! Except for one thing: “A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan.” So says televangelist Bill Keller. I saw this idiot today being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, and even O’Reilly thought the guy was nuts.

Oh, the irony of it all. I knew that if I could just hold out long enough, all the shit these pathetic specimens have done would come back upon them. They’re stuck with the situation they created, and there’s nothing they can do about it.
cautious

John P,

As a person who works with evolution (or…rather, looks at fossils and tries to figure out their evolutionary relationships) I agree with you that “belief in evolution” is a weird sounding phrase.

Mike C,

Stop being right! 😛 You are indeed correct in saying that “belief” as a word is a rather broad-defined term.

However, I do think that different forms of “belief” are…conflated? confused? by a question like “Do you believe in evolution or creationism?” that almost all of these candidates have now been asked. …not to mention that this question, depending upon one’s definition of “evolution” and “creationism” actually might not be a choice between mutually exclusive things.

Like, to me, evolution is both the fact that all earthly organisms are related to one another and thus commonly descended, and the theories of how to explain these relations. Creationism is what the Creation Museum teaches. One of these is good science, the other is the active ignorance of 200 years of science. But based on John Edwards’ response to this question, it seemed like he thought that creationism is just the belief that God/Jesus guides evolution. Which …depending on who you ask, is not at all “creationism”.
Maria

Did anyone happen to catch Pat Robertson’s bizare mathematical rant yesterday on the “700 Club?” The United States is four hundred years old, and it’s been forty years since Israel’s 6 Day War, and everything God likes to do is in forties, so the end is near…and it’s all clear if you just know how to see what’s in the Bible, right? Of course, after talking about the end of the world, Pat segues into something completely mindless like “Five Things Your Husband Won’t Tell You”. Nice. Thanks, Pat.

You know, just when I think Pat Robertson can’t get any nuttier, he goes and proves me wrong!
Mike C

However, I do think that different forms of “belief” are…conflated? confused? by a question like “Do you believe in evolution or creationism?” that almost all of these candidates have now been asked. …not to mention that this question, depending upon one’s definition of “evolution” and “creationism” actually might not be a choice between mutually exclusive things.

Like, to me, evolution is both the fact that all earthly organisms are related to one another and thus commonly descended, and the theories of how to explain these relations. Creationism is what the Creation Museum teaches. One of these is good science, the other is the active ignorance of 200 years of science. But based on John Edwards’ response to this question, it seemed like he thought that creationism is just the belief that God/Jesus guides evolution. Which …depending on who you ask, is not at all “creationism”.

I agree. Creation & Evolution are not mutually exclusive – it is possible to “believe” in both (as I do). However, literal 6-Day Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

As for God “guiding” evolution – that too can mean many things. It can mean a “God of the gaps” approach like many ID folks take, where God miraculously intervenes at various points in the evolutionary process to bring about the results he desires. Or it can simply refer to God setting up the process in the beginning to unfold naturally exactly the way it has in accordance with his eternal purposes. I would agree with the latter but not the former, since the former makes God seem rather incompetent – like he couldn’t come up with a working natural system so has to keep tweaking it along the way. 🙂
cautious

Which of those two approaches do you think that a scientist like Newton agreed with? Since it seems like he, as a Christian and a scientist, is a major hero to the ID movement. But if he were still alive, for some reason I have the notion that he would argue with the ID movement on theological grounds.

…of course he’d also argue with Dawkins. To be fair, I expect zombie Newton would argue with a lot of people.
Mike C

Which of those two approaches do you think that a scientist like Newton agreed with?

I don’t know enough about Newton to say. On the one hand he is known for putting forth the idea of a universe that functions according to deterministic natural laws (which would fit with the idea of God using evolution as his naturalistic means of creation), but on the other hand, he was also known to appeal to a “God of the Gaps” (i.e. supernatural intervention in naturalistic processes) to explain those areas that science didn’t have answers for yet – much as the ID movement does. So probably a both/and.
Miko

Which of those two approaches do you think that a scientist like Newton agreed with? Since it seems like he, as a Christian and a scientist, is a major hero to the ID movement.

I’ve always thought it was ironic that ID/creationism champion Newton because he was a Christian. For one thing, back then in the area that Newton lived, everyone was. For another, he was the original proposer of the idea that his mechanical universe followed universal laws–which is to say laws that act the same at any point in spacetime. Newton himself didn’t explore all of the consequences of this idea (although he did use it as an argument against miracles), but it nonetheless laid the foundation for all of the scientific ideas that ID/creationists gainsay. And finally, Newton also explored alchemy. I think we all realize that it’d be silly if a group of alchemers today were to point to Newton as proof that science and alchemy are compatible. It’s theoretically possible that religion and science are compatable, but the fact that Newton didn’t explicitly deny this possibility isn’t evidence for it.

But if he were still alive, for some reason I have the notion that he would argue with the ID movement on theological grounds.

I don’t know enough about Newton’s theology to have an opinion on that, but I’m fairly sure he’d argue against it on scientific grounds. Even without having any understanding of evolution, he’d be able to realize that ID wasn’t even a theory. While he purportedly read the Bible daily, etc., he also thought that things like creation were scientific and attempted to study them via the scientific method. ID, on the other hand, seems to be trying to discredit the very idea of the scientific method.

I’d guess that his vision of the universe was sort of like a clock set in motion by a designer and then left to its own functioning–if he’d lived a bit later on, I think he would have been a deist.
cautious

Cool feedback, Mike and Miko. Thanks.

I think that Newton’s dual identity as an alchemist/scientist is …well ok fine I think a lot of Newton the person is interesting. His theology was heavily influenced by his science (and vice versa) and so anyone who dabbles in both worlds almost has to pay some form of homage to him. Even if it is an homage to more of a legendary version of the man instead of the actual man.
Darryl

It is not only the Republicans that still don’t get it. I see this week that the Democratic Presidential candidates were out to prove their religious bona fides on CNN.

Unlike the simple-minded black-and-whiters, I can see the distinctions between these two Parties as to how they have cynically used religion as political tools. The fact that many Republicans actually believe such nonsense doesn’t make them any less culpable of demagoguery. I especially deplore those sinners that cry the loudest about the moral issues only to be discovered sometime later to have had close encounters of the naughty kind with people to whom they aren’t married, or people of the same sex (for shame!).

There are reasons why the Democrats have not made a show of their religion as have the Republicans–and no, it’s not because they’re evil, or secular humanists, or whatever. I guess they learned a bad lesson in the last two Presidential elections: you’ve got to appeal to the values-voter if you’re going to win. I doubt that attitudes toward religion have changed an iota for Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or whomever, since they decided to make the run for the White House. They have sacrificed principle for expediency. Now, at a time when religion is one of our primary problems to be solved, the Democrats are seeking cover. Very few politicians have the guts or the luxury to tell people the unpleasant truth.

Representative government is a wonderful idea that I embrace–I just wish I had someone to represent me and my views.
Darryl

Mike Huckabee is a nut. Today he gave a speech on the second amendment. I saw it on CSPAN. In doing so he told a story about a hunt he was on, and he said that “by the grace of God” and the assistance of angels that guided his bullet, he killed an animal. What the hell interest do God and the angels have in helping some guy win a sporting competition? Thank god this nut has no chance of becoming President!
ChihChing

Criticize people who don’t believe in evolution is laughable. I was taught evolution and not questioned it until in the years when I persuite my graducate degree. After I evaluated the evidences, I concluded that micro evolution do exist but the evidence of all speices are of the same acestor is lacking. Watch this huge project that involved thousands of biologests in the world and still is lacking of any common ancestors in the links. You can see those cousin speices without any credible common ancestors.

http://www.tolweb.org/Mammalia

(this is just a portion of pages that interested most people, click on those blude links and you will find no direct common ancestors in most cases)

Research by yourself and you will find using evolution to explain the human origin is laughable.

Have fun to excercise your brain!!!!