Bill Maher = ass, but raises a good point of discussion = upvote for the topic, not the host.

He doesn't understand why, as a potential candidate, he's being asked if he believes in evolution? That's why he'll never be President...

*rolls eyes*

Why would you vote for something on videosift for something other than the content?

The evangelicals have their candidate.

Huge props to Bill Maher for asking the question properly, and Hillbillee, well, what can you say. Read a fucking book.

As always, the creationist equates evolution with random chance, which is utterly wrong. Natural selection is the exact opposite of random chance.

Some of the people I've seen in my lifetime make me question Natural Selection...

"and Hillbillee, well, what can you say. Read a @#$%^& book"


Yeah, cause no books have ever come out against evolution....

If that guy is elected, I'm moving to Norway.

Hah, what was he doing going on Bill Maher's show? He should have known better.

Is Mike Huckabee smarter than a 5th grader?

No.

So, he's admitting he's not qualified to be an 8th grade science teacher but asks for the responsibility of being president? Yah, good luck with that.

dead?

While I think Bill Maher asked I good question there's one I would have found particularly relevant, that he did not ask.

Does Huckabee think evolution should be thought in science class, and does he think creationism should be taught in science class.

That's the important one to me. He can personally believe whatever crazy thing he wants so long as he recognizes religion does not = science. Science is about understand our world through the use of empirical evidence, God is non-empirical, you can't prove he/she/it exists and you can't disprove it (hence why the word faith is so prevalent in religious circles, it is to believe despite evidence).

My problem is that many religious people are trying to present religious ideals as science and force it to be taught in schools as science. Creationism was created as a psuedo-scientific vehicle to advance religious belief. The irony in doing so is that by trying to argue for God on a scientific level they lose strength for their position, because scientifically there are literally mountains of evidence (seriously, mountains are great evidence against creationist claims) that disprove most 'scientific' creationist claims. The rest of their claims are based on non-scientific claims (God did it). So I guess to sum it up, the importance of the question is whether or not he thinks it's okay to teach religion in a science class.

This is the guy that said "If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it."

Myself, I think the presidency should be limited to primates.

[For the record, I'm pretty sure sleestaks are primates.]

I'd say he's right, for the wrong reasons. You don't have to believe in science any more than you have to believe in math. They have no power and little relevance as beliefs.

He should, however, understand the value of the theory of evolution by natural selection, both its value as a predictive tool and its value as an explanatory principle for the origins of the great variety of living and extinct life forms.

Seems like a bright enough fellow, and certainly a man of enviably strong conviction.

Science is a METHOD, not a belief.

In other words, I don't believe in evolution. I also don't believe in the theory of electromagnetism. Lucky for me understanding is required, belief is irrelevant.

I understand evolution and its value as a beautiful and vastly important scientific theory, and in that context its a scientific truth that should be taught alongside other important scientific truths of our current age.

... it was a stupid question, and only valuable if a 'No' answer means he'll outlaw teaching things he doesn't understand.

He didn't say he didn't believe in Evolution, he said that he didn't know, but that there was a creator behind it. He also said that it's inappropriate to ask such questions as "yes or no" questions without explanation in a presidential debate, which it is. But I guess some of you are too busy giving yourselves handjobs over how great it is to be able to have another Christian to bash that you've got no problem twisting it into whatever you want.

Mike Huckabee is the one running ads with "Christian Leader" scrolling below his portrait. He's bringing his faith into this race, not someone else. If his Christian faith has something to do with his leadership, then questions about his faith are absolutely fair.

Sounds like Mike wants it both ways.

He wasn't saying that questions about his faith aren't fair. He was saying that boiling it down to a simple "raise your hand if you believe this" and moving on was not appropriate. You'll understand that perfectly if you ever talk with a government employee on the phone, and they repeatedly ask you to respond yes or no to questions that require explanation, and yet are denied it.

He wasn't saying he shouldn't be asked about Evolution, but that at that particular debate if they were going to ask, they should have allowed him to express his answer more fully instead of just leaving it at that.

Anyway, I'm just defending this guy because even though I'm a Democrat, this is one Republican who I actually think isn't insane, is a genuinely nice guy, and has some good ideas.

Plus he has the support of Chuck Norris! How can you go wrong?

Although he came damn close when he was talking about random chance (I don't think he knows exactly what he's talking about) I didn't really hear a denial of evolution at all in there. He seemed to basically be saying that he's personally more of the belief that there was a creator if existence rather than there was not... which is where a hell of a lot of atheists have their head up their asses in my opinion.

A lot of them act like it's impossible to believe in God and evolution at the same time, which really makes no sense because I've yet to hear a solid explanation of where exactly the atoms came from that created all the stars and planets (and other stuff we've yet to discover). Oh yeah, and all the atoms self-organized over billions of years to create sentient beings that can argue over such topics on the internet.

My point is that no human knows the answer to that question. There's no real evidence that can be shown to prove anything definitively about the creation of even this universe. The only real argument I ever hear from true atheists is that God does not exist because of lack of evidence. But it's a basic fundamental of argument that from a lack of evidence one cannot establish a conclusion. The only way to go from "There's probably no God out there." to "There is no God." is by non-empirical belief.

/not religious

I agree with his point that the questions were simplistic and the format didn't allow for substantive debate. Raise your hand, answer yes/no??? Thoughtful answers demand more than that.

As least I get the impression this guy actually believes what he's saying, as opposed to Bush who spews Christian crap in order to continue scamming the religious rightwing idiocy.

If your intuition is that evolution has come about by completely random mutations then it is indeed hard to believe. How can you go from proto humans to humans in hundreds of thousands of years with random changes to base pairs? How can thousands of generations of tiny random variations have produced the huge changes we see?

I think any reasonably smart person will understand that the selection process (natural selection) is not random, but the interesting questions are about the proposal function / mutation function.

I guess the thing is that we've evolved to evolve faster and more efficiently. Organisms can have small mutations which turn off, turn on, or duplicate entire, complex systems. The organisms which have the genetic machinery to adapt more quickly are the ones that survived.

If you think about it, billions of years of evolution haven't just produced organisms which are well suited for the environment, they've produced organisms well suited to rapidly mutate in plausible ways for changing environments. And you could keep going to meta levels like this- the organisms with the most success don't just have the highest rate of successful mutation (first derivative), they have the best ability to propose and incorporate new sets of mutations (second derivative) into their toolbox of potential changes, etc, etc...

I think the standard science textbook explanation of "random mutations" is intellectually unsatisfying. How much genetic material per generation is changing on average? What are the mechanisms for these changes? Why not spend a few extra paragraphs on this stuff.

Most of my textbooks and science teachers for that matter, have actually done a pretty good job of explaining it (so far as I can recall). The problem I see if the common understanding of it (or misunderstanding), especially that spouted off by those who are against it. Though I suppose that is more a function of human nature, the more you are against something the less likely you are to attempt to understand it,especially those parts that weaken your case against it.

And it is true, Huckabee doesn't outright say he doesn't believe, instead he sort of flops around like a fish one land (one of those non-evolved legless lungless fish :-p ). It's not as though he isn't given time to explain his answer either, instead he uses part of it to attack the question. To me it seemed like he didn't want to give an answer. If he said said 'yes, but God's hand is behind it' he alienates all those hardcore evangelists, if he says no, he alienates everyone else.

The question isn't that bad, as it tells something of the candidate that people might use when deciding who to vote for, but, as I said earlier, I'd have much rather heard it phrased so it was about the teaching (or not teaching) of evolution in school.

On this question, "yes" or "no" is all I'll ever need to hear. There is no possible rationale for believing in creationism that will ever assuage my instant judgement of you as a fucking lunatic and likely moron.

Zifnab, your title is atrocious. Huckabee didn't deny evolution. As far as i could tell, he only denied two things:

1) that "random selection" alone could produce us
2) that God had nothing to do with our existence

Anyone who equates the above to deny evolution is, well, far more bigoted than Mike Huckabee.

@budzos...

Sorry, but it's foolish to say that such a complex issue is settled by a simple yes or no. As likely as it is, evolution is a theory, also, define "creationism". Do you mean actual the earth is 6000 years old creationism or are you down on the guy just because he says a greater power was involved? Because I do recall his answer to both the evolution question AND the 6000 years question, when allowed to give an answer other than yes or no, was "I don't know".

In something like this, I don't know is a perfectly valid answer. As a matter of fact anyone that claims to know is a fool. All of this is theory and while some theory is more likely than others, unless you are a Scientist actually researching this stuff your "knowing" is no better than reciting verbatim what your supposed elementary/jr. high teachers told you.

Personally, I think it's refreshing to find someone who is wise enough to admit he doesn't know things. In such an issue that is truly impossible for us to KNOW at this point (I did not say speculate, I did not say theorize, and I'm not even trying to imply that we're not really close to correct) I have respect for someone who is willing to say "I don't know" and leave the argument to the people that SHOULD be debating it.

Hope that quickness to judge people works out in life for you. I'm sure you'll have loads of friends.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not religious and I do believe in evolution. I mention it because some reject is 100% likely (it's the internet, it just happens) to assume I am one or the other or both just because I'm taking Huckabee's side on this one.

"Do you mean actual the earth is 6000 years old creationism or are you down on the guy just because he says a greater power was involved?"

The distinction between those two facts is irrelevant from my POV. If anyone answers "I don't know" or "yes" to "do you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old" then they are a moron and that's the end of the investigation.

For a seemingly intelligent guy you are disappointingly taken in by Huckabee's double-speak here. He is clearly running under the banner of religion, and in this context he was not asked "yes or no" but given the chance to elaborate his position. Instead of being forthcoming he attempted to sidestep the issue with retrospective parsing. What further evidence do you need that this man is a delusional huckster?

Experience has simply taught me that, most likely, someone who publicly proclaims that "we did not descend from monkeys" will tend to be a willfully ignorant, hubristic, hypocritical person. Call me prejudiced if it makes you feel better about yourself.

FWIW I don't miss making friends with religious nuts.

Actually, I don't like his double entente and refusal to answer directly, but he's right on this one for the wrong reason - the question was silly. You could believe a higher power was involved even if you though Darwin was correct, just look at the latest quantum mechanics theories involving multiverse, universe as a hologram and even universe as a simulation - these are even more out there (yet 60% of all leading astrophysicist think that the multiverse theory is correct).

Asking in America as part of a presidential debate 'do you believe in evolution is akin to ask 'Do you not believe in God', and Huckabee simply answered no because he did believe in God (and arguably didn't want to offend his religious voter base).

I've heard about the universe as a simluation one and it kinda disturbs me. Basic idea is, projecting forward, the human race will have enough computing power to run billions of atom-level simulations of the entire history of the universe from start to finish, including the lifetime of every member of the human race. The simulations would be so completely detailed that the artificial intelligences within the simulation would think they are self-aware and part of a "real" existence.

If you consider that there can only be a single true reality, and that all the billions of simulations are populated with deceived replicas of our true selves, it is statistically most likely that we are part of a simulation running on the infinitely powerful computing infrastructure of some future civilization, and thus not actually "real."

Though i totally disagree with people who think evolution is made up when there mounds of evidence otherwise and the fact that i dont like huckabee at all i still do see his point. Faith is always a question that arises, like the Kennedy video that was sifted a short time ago is it possible to seperate your beliefs to the way you lead? Its a tricky situation, being catholic didnt seem to run Kennedy's leadership completley. I think he dodged it the only way thats acceptable by saying "i dont know". Maher is (like he usually does) drawing a huge generalization that ones rational in this one subject puts their entire rational state into question, which isnt always true. Though Huckabee is doing the same thing by saying it has no bearing what so ever and shouldnt even be asked which also isnt always true

He's right that he's running for president not for an 8th grade teacher, but the president probably shouldn't be ignorant of 8th grade science. (Oh, snap!)

evolution does not explain creation.

Though I certainly disagree with Huckabee, I think he handled himself quite well in this interview and does not deserve the hate dished out in the comments above. Perhaps he deserves it on other videos, but not this one. He did not deny evolution, he simply thinks that God had a hand in evolution. Even though he is probably wrong, he is no more foolish or insane than the vast majority of the American public.

Feel free to bash him in the vids where he says something really stupid.