Talking about religion
There should be nothing surprising about John McCain's . It is, after all, one of the areas where he can differentiate himself from his predecessor. He has noted as well, no doubt, that the Republican Party was not desperately well served by its religious wing in 2006 - perhaps he feels the Bible Thumpers could do with a period in the shade. He stands at around 6, I see, on the , which seems about right.
But homilies about faith might well be absent this year: this is, after all, going to be the first US presidential election of the 21st Century involving two candidates both of whom accept the scientific truth of evolution - which the outside world (except the Islamic world, I suppose) may well see as progress.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, Tony Blair has . His situation is the opposite of the US recent experience - to talk of religion while in office in the UK is to mark yourself down as weird, as the Guardian notes: "The speech was his first and most detailed public statement on religion, a subject his most senior advisers told him to avoid during his decade-long premiership."
And the man who brought us The Office has .
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Bible Thumpers? Scientific proof of evolution?
Hmmm, I guess Justin Webb is a source that reports the news and not his own biased opinion. And we all know about opinions, don't we?
P.S. Try expanding your mind and reading something on Evolution and God other than that which already agrees with what you want to believe. It's a real balanced approach to investigative study.
It is interesting that Mr. Webb seems to think that believing in evolution will not be seen as progress in the "Muslim world", as he put it. I was wondering what source was Mr. Webb basing his opinion on? I am a muslim and I happen to believe in evolution, and I know plenty of muslims who do. Mr. Webb should try to come to terms with the fact that what he called the "muslim world" is a much more diverse group than he seems to think.
Incidentally, I also know plenty of Arab christians who do not believe in evolution at all.
Go figure.
James Dale - A blog is not typical journalism but rather a mixture of opinion and musings about events. Not sure if you're American, but evolution is generally accepted everywhere else and doesn't require much 'investigative' study.
Must say I'm awfully glad all presidential candidates have caught up with the rest of the world regarding evolution and global warming.
Politics and religion shouldn't mix (heck, anything and religion - education, economics, militarism).
Too much suffering has been caused in the world by people trying to force their beliefs down other people's throats, or by acting on their own religious beliefs while supposedly representing entire nations of citizens.
Fundamentalism is dangerous, wherever it comes from.
Church and state must be separate. Once that starts to slip (as it has over the years due to powerful and rich lobbyists), things quickly go downhill.
@James Dale
*sigh*
There's really nothing to debate. Please try to understand the difference between faith and objective evidence. Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the development of life based on what we find in the natural world. Creationism, on the other hand, rests on a foundation of superstition and myth.
Still, feel free to cite whatever books you feel would be of interest.
Can you spot McCain here?
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed (covers most Gods)
Ummm Justin, actually, Islam is with the evolutionists not against. Even a cursory look at the Qur'an would confirm that, apart from the opinions of many Islamic scholars. Only Christianity is firmly against the theory of evolution for obvious reasons.
"This is, after all, going to be the first US presidential election of the 21st Century involving
two candidates both of whom accept the scientific truth of evolution - which the outside world (except the Islamic world, I suppose) may well see as progress."
Now hold on!! You know this how? As I've stated on several previous entries, I am not happy in the least with the turn religion has taken with respect to the presidency!!! Well just for instance with these two candidates (whom ever they may be). All they had to do was "say" that they either accepted the cientific truth of evolution or not accepted it, and people would've believed it. That is why I am so utterly opposed to how dangerously fused Christianity in particular has become welded to the office of the presidency!!! Faith, at the end of the day, is a personal thing!! One an spout all the sayings, quotes, and beliefs they want till their heart's content, and personally live and think life completely opposite from that which they proclaim and vice versa!! No one truely knows what they believe except their close family, friends, and if they are of a faith, the God(s) they surve and that's the way it sould be!! The public they lead, should not hinge their onfidence in their leader on the fact that they pray or not!!! Rather it should be on their skills as a leader! And you mean to tell me that even Al Gore himself (the champion of global warming awareness in this country), didn't accept this fact back when he was running for president in 2000!? I find that hard to believe indeed!!
And the "outside world may well see this, if it is in fact true, as progress"!? O dear God!!!! What!! So you mean to tell me that the majority of the outside world sees Americans and their leaders as religious zellots?! I'm afraid to say I don't think that the outside world's thoughts on our "progress" on seperating church and state are necessarily fair and/or rational, considering that you yourself just said that "this is the first presidencial election of the 21st century in which two candidates accept the cientific truth of evolution"!! That means that in the 20th and 19th centuries, there very well may have been a president(s) and/or presidential hopeful(s) who have accepted the scientific truth of evolution!! What did the world think then? Do those who can still remember those times (as some of them aren't that long ago) think back on this when contimplating the darkness of the bush years, and the rescue of the years to come? Its so, so sad if they do in fact think this!! If any foreigners have a firm grip on the world's pulse of their overall thoughts on us and our candidates could they help enlighten me as well? I've always thought that this was a given for Republicans, but definitely not for Democrats!
The British pieces were very enlightening indeed. As I have pointed out things rong with religion and politics in the US, so I feel I must do so regarding the UK as well. People in tis country expect religious spouting from their candidates (even if it isn't true), while people in the UK, it seems, tend to cringe at the very thought of a religious politicion. Now I don't think either approach is right! As the Gardian article pointed out, the reasons why people in the UK isolate religious politicions so much are very understandable indeed, but I think placeing them in such extreem catagories is border line racest!! Unless a politicion says themself, that they are either attempting and/or intending to impose their rligion on others, feel they have been given permition from God to rule as they please, etc etc, then I don't think it is fair, mature,respectful, or kind for UK citizens to assume these things of a prime minister or other leader just because they may make a passing mention to a held faith or belief! That, in my opinion, is just as bad as the Christian right in this country freaking out if presidential candidates don't spend hours talking about their epifonies in the church etc!! Its all bigoted! If they all saw it as is; '"this person just happens to be religious or an atheiost etc" the world would be much better off!!! To the citizens of the US and UK: both Christians and atheiosts alike need not be descriminated against!! Perhaps we should have a civil rights era for religion?
O and Justin, the Youtube piece, it seems to be the guy was making fun of religion, as opposed to stating that he actually believed it. You seem to tink that he was serious in your blog. You may want to put a clip of Bill Marr making fun of religion up if you wish to make this point next time (an AMERICAN ATHEIOUST!!!), his jokes are a bit funnier. Just a suggestion.
"going to be the first US presidential election of the 21st Century involving two candidates both of whom accept the scientific truth of evolution"
Just by chance I was reading an old New Scientist on the loo this morning (TMI I know!). It was from the middle of 2007.
In "Don't vote for ignorance" by Lawrence Krauss, he was talking about the first Republican Presidential Debate in May 2007 and he acknowledged that Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo all said that they did not believe in evolution.
However John McCain, who had stated that he believes in evolution, later congratulated Huckabee on his statements, including that "if anybody wants to believe they are descendants of a primate they are certainly welcome to it".
Hardly a picture of a person who "accepts the scientific truth" but rather the actions of a politician trying to keep both sides happy.
Oh and thanks for the link to the Ricky Gervais sketch, brilliant!
Most people I know who hold spiritual beliefs, be they Christian, Animist, Buddhist, Muslim etc don't have faith in the American system anymore. Most that I know are trying to break free from it. "Withholding consent" is the term, I believe.
I don't know anyone who is voting come November; it's not because they or we're not aware. Those who pander to religion no one believes anymore. Those who don't don't fare any better.
We're getting sick of "business as usual."
The question is not which candidate is for God or how much but which one God is for. He has a lot of sway, they say. (Let's hope He doesn't read your blog!)
I wonder how many Americans can even take seriously in consideration Intelligent Design or Creationism. Anyone who has attended actual science classes know that Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, coming out from Darwinist Evolution and Mendellian Genetics, is the cornerstone of the modern Biology.
You know, Genome Project, studies about genetic drift, mutation, new medicines... Creationism or ID gave us nothing about all of this. Actual science did.
Faith-based motivation can be a powerful force for good as Jimmy Carter has shown. Not having a religious conservative in the White House will be a welcome change. Ricky Gervais is brilliant (as is Eddie Izzard). As Mark Twain said, "Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight."
Cheap shot with regards to the Islamic world... How juvenile and low could you ge!! No reason to take a swipe at them!!! and who says that they dont believe in evolution?
I m a muslim and I read in the holy Koran statement that begs to differ...
I did'nt think the catolic chuch or the jewish faith accepts this so called scientific truth of evolution so why only mention the muslim world???
When speaking of one's views on evolution you conveniently left out the word 'Theory', it's the 'Theory of Evolution'. We all have our own theories about how we came to be but that has little consequence on our lives or the job of chief executive, what Americans find important in the Religion of their candidates is the candidate's moral center, or the lack thereof. Outspoken atheists have chosen that view to reject the moral guidance of religion and the mores of civilized society, the question of the 'Origin of the spies' is just a convenient argument in defense of an path bereft of morals.
Just because something is the accepted belief of the day does not make it truth, or progressive.
There are many scientists who believe that we must have been designed. Because science means reaching conclusions based on the evidence, and nobody should be castigated for reaching their own conclusions.
I don't mind what you believe Justin, but please don't use a medium such as the highly respected 主播大秀 to criticise those who have reached different conclusions.
Another jibe by Justin at the Islamic World - rubbish journalism as usual - bbc is once again going down the tabloid route
Sir David Attenborough once rightly called Creationists "The barking Terriers of ignorance" it is reassuring to know that the next finger on America's Nuclear Button will not belong to somone who sees His or Herself as a possible Agent of Armgagedon.
Islamic World doesn't believe in evolution?!?
...Since when?
God and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I know many Muslims who accept the science of evolution.
@ Fry
"There's really nothing to debate. Please try to understand the difference between faith and objective evidence."
Sorry Justin, getting off a little on the topic, but I'd really like to respond to this.
Besides "objective evidence" being completely nonobjective in Evolution (if everything happened at random, how can anything be objective), that same evidence is used by non-evolutionist and they find contra to that theory. From cold numbers to deep biological studies, you might want to learn about the "irreducible complexity" idea if your existence matters (seriously, unless it doesn't matter really if everyone called you blob #67763626x1000000000).
On topic:
I agree religion is going to take the back seat. It'll be there, but not really important as the religious card players ruined their names. In my opinion, religion shouldn't be a part of politics while there should be more freedom from the government policing anything that concerns freedom (let the Christians pray in school, they let the Muslims). It's all backwards. Less religion in politics, and more religious freedom is the way.
Let's not forget that the path to modern science sprang from origins in China and the classical Mediterranean and Middle East, was preserved and grew as it ran for a millenium throughout the intellectual Muslim world (and through isolated monasteries), before reaching the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Having said that I wish people at least understand the scientific meaning of "theory" and that evolution is no weaker a "theory" than the "theories" of gravity, relativity or quantum electrodynamics. These work extraordinarily well for everything we can directly observe, and all the things we are still devising tools to let us observe.
Most of us also have great respect for the "theory" of gravity when walking a mountain switchback or looking out our airplane window.
Evolution is just a theory and one that isn't even well proved by the laws of science promoting it. We have not found the "missing link." The ignorance is the smug, condescending attitutude forced down our throats by so-called enlightened evolutionists. You once thought the world was flat, too.
The Catholic Church also takes no official position on the scientific process of evolution, only the purpose (telos) and means. Science doesn't deal in teleology, and it only speaks of origins in terms of theory, because there is no consensus as to the specifics or content of evolutionary THEORY. You should know that before making such faith statements about evolution. At any rate, some people are thankful that Americans don't all think exactly like the global Left. I appreciate my fellow agnostic and non-religious citizens and their contributions to American life and society, but I'm glad there are still plenty of "Bible thumpers" too. Their contributions to public discussion on human purpose and moral responsibility based on the dignity of human life ensure that rationalist 鈥淒arwin-thumpers鈥 don鈥檛 have unchecked influence on public policy. Likewise, the non-religious ensure that religious activists don鈥檛 alter law and policy to fit their ideal mold. Any pluralistic democrat should be thankful for this diversity of opinion as well. Those who think in terms like this blog and most of the following comments clearly aren't committed to diversity or pluralism in politics and government. Shame.
Re the comments about Muslim acceptance of the theory of evolution: This is good to hear. A source to the contrary is the writings from 'Harun Yahya', a collective pseudonym of some Turkish Islamic antiscientists. (Granted that much of their materials are copies of Christian antievolution material with minor word changes.) Perhaps you could educate them about Islam?
Re Christian non-acceptance of the Theory of Evolution: The Catholic Church does have an official position, and it's that evolution is no problem for the church or religion. Judaism isn't so centralized, but many groups have noted their lack of trouble. This is also true for many Protestant churches even in the US. See
In talking about religions with problems with science, it doesn't seem to be a matter of Christianity or Islam or ... versus science. It is fundamentalists, some of whom are Christian, Muslim, ..., who have the problem.
Justin - i think it highlights the change in 'tone' that the rest of the world (particularly Europe) has noticed - you have 3 candidates whose views are not a million miles away from a classic left of centre/right of centre axis that you see any in many Western European democracies.
@Reuben - humanity did not derive its moral centre from religion, you don't need to teach a child the 'golden rule'- that is innate. Your 'origin of species' argument as a path bereft of morals doesn't wash, as somebody who supports Darwins theory of evolution doesn't propose we should live our lives according to some 'natural law of the jungle' - quite the opposite in fact. Knowing about our evolutionary history doesn't make us evil, just more knowledgeable about who we are and where we came from.
@ryan
'Irreducible complexity' was the main weapon in the ID/creationist battles of recent times - lets just say its proponents have been disarmed ! Their claim that bacterial flagella could not have evolved has been proven to be totally false - the molecular components of the flagella can be broken down into a clear evolutionary path.
You also make the oft-repeated mistake of claiming evolution is 'random' - it is not, genetic mutation is random, natural selection is not.
As for your other point about separation of state and religion - absolutely - people are free to believe whatever they want (as long as it doesn't affect me).
I'm sure McCain will be forced to break the silence before it's over.
Everyone makes such a big deal of evangelicals, but don't forget about Catholics (a fourth of the country). Or for that matter groups like blacks and Hispanics are very religious. The latter by the way are becoming a very important group in some swing states like Florida.
You imply religion is some kind of lose-lose issue. Not in this country. There is a clear winning side on that one.
"When speaking of one's views on evolution you conveniently left out the word 'Theory', it's the 'Theory of Evolution'. -Reuben"
In the scientific field, if something is a theory, it means that it's pretty well established and evidence up to current research support it. So, for something to be a "Theory" is pretty big and not "just" anything.
I don't want to turn this into a religion vs. science thread as I do not believe at all that the two are in opposition, or that science precludes or interferes with religious faith.
The poster who said that fundamentalists of almost all faiths are most in opposition to science is closest to the mark. They seem to oppose challenge to their more absolute authority, a view ironically shared by irreligious totalitarian governments.
It is important to credit almost all cultures (from every world region on the 主播大秀 main page, and from every religion) for contributions to our modern body of knowledge, and to not make heavy-handed comments about who as a group does or does not allow modern thought (evolution for example).
Fianlly, the classical Greeks at least, and probably more cultures, knew the earth was not flat. They saw the curved shadow of the earth during lunar eclipse, and famously measured the change in noontime shadow with latitude to compute the size of the earth accurate to a few percent. The mistaken 'factual' arguments arrayed against evolution here show the lack of science education or literacy in the USA, and the opposition to science by fundamentalists, a competitive disadvantage that I fear will cripple the 2nd post-Sputnik generation.
Justin - i think it highlights the change in 'tone' that the rest of the world (particularly Europe) has noticed - you have 3 candidates whose views are not a million miles away from a classic left of centre/right of centre axis that you see any in many Western European democracies.
@Reuben - humanity did not derive its moral centre from religion, you don't need to teach a child the 'golden rule'- that is innate. Your 'origin of species' argument as a path bereft of morals doesn't wash, as somebody who supports Darwins theory of evolution doesn't propose we should live our lives according to some 'natural law of the jungle' - quite the opposite in fact. Knowing about our evolutionary history doesn't make us evil, just more knowledgeable about who we are and where we came from.
@ryan
'Irreducible complexity' was the main weapon in the ID/creationist battles of recent times - lets just say its proponents have been disarmed ! Their claim that bacterial flagella could not have evolved has been proven to be totally false - the molecular components of the flagella can be broken down into a clear evolutionary path.
You also make the oft-repeated mistake of claiming evolution is 'random' - it is not, genetic mutation is random, natural selection is not.
As for your other point about separation of state and religion - absolutely - people are free to believe whatever they want (as long as it doesn't affect me).