Mike Huckabee Endorses Stein’s Anti-Evolutionary Film Expelled!

Mike Huckabee (R-Of Nothing) may have given up his quixotic quest to beat mathematically impossible odds against John McCain, but darn it: the man still has something to say. So take it from a guy that thinks bees fly via magic: this Expelled! film is boss!

He’s a heck of a lot more candid about his opinions on evolutionary science than he was in his famous debate answer, making it even more clear that even the Republican party dodged a bullet on this one.

Question for economists: If hot air like this is in such high demand, how come it’s still free? Infinite supply, right?

Advertisements

15 Responses to Mike Huckabee Endorses Stein’s Anti-Evolutionary Film Expelled!

  1. Will K. says:

    “Freedom: it’s what our nation was founded on, and something that I fought for on the campaign trail.”

    Yeah, Wayne DuMond says thanks.

    Normally I can find at least a few redeeming features in any politician, but every time Huckabee starts talking I wonder why his handlers even let him open his mouth.

  2. Winghunter says:

    Excellent find!! Thank you, it will be added to my list;

    Mike “The Huckster” Huckabee
    http://mikeyhuckabee.blogspot.com/

    One slight correction through the evidence of his past and records: The Huckster is not a republican, let alone, a conservative yet he’s one of the biggest con artists and panderer’s we’ve ever seen run for the highest office of the land ( On the republican ticket. )

    Willard and Rudolph were just as pathetic in their own right;

    Willard Mitt Romney
    http://willardromney.blogspot.com/

    Rudolph Giuliani
    http://rudolphgiuliani.blogspot.com/

    However, McCain has his own planet but, it’s not located in this universe;

    John “Juan” McCain
    http://juanmccain.blogspot.com/

    Wherein, there were only two candidates who held the measure of a republican – Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter.

    However, if we were to define the candidates from the other side of the aisle we only have to acknowledge a truism in a quote by PJ O’Rourke:

    “At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats.”

    Thanks again!

  3. Bad says:

    Well, I disagree on that score, Huckabee is both a conservative and a Republican by any normal definition of those terms. If that was just hyperbole meant to express strong disagreement with him, then that’s fine of course.

    And I agree on finding it highly amusing that the Republican nominee is someone who not too long ago was in consultations on the possibility of switching parties.

  4. 2xvoice says:

    Why isn’t it possible to be genuinely religious AND accept evolution? God created the universe, set off the Big Bang — and whatever came before it — and the process that eventually led to life on Earth. Science can describe the process of evolution — the HOW, but not the purpose or teleology — the WHY. The WHY isn’t science’s business, and the HOW isn’t religion’s business. Teach evolution in science classes and creationism in church. They should stay off each other’s turf.
    Victor Kulkosky
    http://outofmymindblog.wordpress.com

  5. Tom says:

    “Why isn’t it possible to be genuinely religious AND accept revolution?”

    A lot of people seem to manage it, but I can understand why a lot of religious people can’t for a number of reasons. The main one to me being that God would have to be a massive bastard to choose evolution as its method of creation, given the level of death and suffering involved for it to work. Denying reality seems easier for them to accept.

  6. “The main one to me being that God would have to be a massive bastard to choose evolution as its method of creation, given the level of death and suffering involved for it to work. ”

    Even those who don’t believe in evolution see a massive amount of death and suffering going on around them RIGHT NOW. So what’s the difference, from their standpoint?

    I, for one, don’t think that’s a good reason not to believe in evolution. Nor do I think that would make God a bastard. At least, by those standards, it wouldn’t make him any more of a bastard either way (whether he used evolution or not).

  7. Bad says:

    Why isn’t it possible to be genuinely religious AND accept evolution?

    You’re correct: it is quite possible to be religious (I’m not sure what “genuinely” adds to that: are there really many disingenuously religious people?) and also accept that science is a reliable means with which to understand the world. But that’s because religious belief overall is diverse and flexible, and can take forms that accommodate science.

    However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t particular religious beliefs that don’t directly conflict with science. And Huckabee, apparently, happens to have one of those sorts of beliefs: ones that are, in fact incompatible. For him, there is a genuine problem: he doesn’t feel that he can both have his particular religious convictions AND accept science. And he’s right. One or the other really does have to give: not necessarily by converting his religion into atheism of course, but certainly by adapting it to scientific reality.

    And it’s also important to add a caveat to your non-overlapping magisteria system, which is certainly respectable enough in its way. And that is that the belief that there is a purpose or teleology in the sense of a particular godly agent having purposes for existence, is also a particular sort of religious belief, rather than something everyone accepts. Science does explain things in terms of “whys”: both in explaining the whys of particular testable agents, and the causes of events. Religion may well speak to things outside that scope, but I don’t think that scope is best defined by a division between “whys” and “hows.”

  8. Kudos to Bad for the breakdown of “whys” and “hows”. I am in complete agreement, but Bad expressed much better what I have failed at before. I’ve been guilty of making similar statements like “science explains how, religion explains why”, even though as I’ve said it, I knew that wasn’t QUITE what I was getting at.

    My mouth (or my fingers, when typing) are sometimes quicker than my brain. ;)

  9. Will K. says:

    Oh, there are certainly disingenuously religious individuals. Quite a few, I imagine. Those who have been raised in a particular religion from young and continue to go through the rituals of it merely reflexively, out of habit, rather than out of any sort of deep-rooted belief in what they are doing.
    There are also atheistic clergymen. I don’t know how many, but I’ve met at least one in real life and read about a few others online. I guess when your entire livelihood is based around religion, it’s hard to just stop even when you’ve run out of faith.

    And I really don’t believe it would be difficult to reconcile scientific and religious beliefs. Of course, when religion decides it wants to be science, that’s when things become irreconcilable (I’m looking at you, intelligent design, baraminology, and young earthism).

  10. Bad says:

    Well, exactly. Many people aren’t willing to do what they would see as compromising THEIR religion for the sake of accommodating science. And there’s nothing insincere about that, per se.

  11. Tom says:

    airtightnoodle,

    I’m surprised you can’t see the difference. Not accepting that evolution occurred allows one to believe such things as that God created the world perfectly and that death and suffering only exist because of mankind’s rejection of God’s authority.

    On the other hand, accepting that evolution occurred requires one to believe that death and suffering were inherent in God’s plan from the beginning. God would have had to have watched humans die mostly horrible, young deaths, in their billions, for hundreds of thousands of years before only recently deigning to reveal himself and his love for us, in the case of Christianity.

    If God chose evolution, then he/she/it knowingly chose a method that would result in all of the tremendous suffering from genetic mutations that we see, and is therefore firmly in the bastard category as far as I’m concerned. There is also the curious situation of it choosing a method that doesn’t actually require a God for it to work.

  12. Tom, I understand the difference, and I apologize if I wasn’t clear. I was being (ever so slightly) facetious.

    However, when you bring death and suffering into the picture, God can end up looking like a bastard from several viewpoints. As you said, one could categorize God as a bastard if He used evolution. However, according to mainstream Christianity, God is all-knowing, so God could be categorized a bastard even if evolution is not true…why make a perfect world KNOWING that mankind is ultimately going to reject God, thus bringing sin, death, suffering, etc into the world?

    Of course, there are arguments both for and against this line of thinking from many different camps.

    I think it’s interesting that this sort of thing often leads a lot of people to choose not to believe, either in God OR evolution. I’ve heard several people use such arguments “Why do bad things happen?”, etc…for supporting why they do not believe in God. Likewise, I’ve seen several people make statements similar to your own about why they choose to believe in creationism instead of evolution.

  13. Tom says:

    I agree with you that the idea of original sin still reflects very poorly on an omnipotent God and puts him in my bastard category either with evolution or without, if only a lot of Christians would see it that way as well! I don’t know which would be the greater challenge, convincing them of evolution, or convincing them of the immorality that is at the heart of their religion.

    The problem of suffering is still one of the strongest arguments against theism in my opinion. As you say, there are arguments for and against, but I can honestly say I’ve never read an even remotely convincing argument against it by a religious person. They usually end up completely, and appallingly, understating the true level of suffering that goes on in the world. I’m always on the lookout for more convincing arguments though, so if you know of any please let me know.

    Cheers

  14. Geo says:

    Why isn’t it possible to be genuinely religious AND accept evolution?

    It is possible, but believing in a God that simply sets things in motion and just sits back and lets things unfold is not very palatable to those who want to believe in a caring, loving Father-type figure, one who answers prayers and helps out when things get bad. Believing in such an impersonal deity runs perilously close to agnosticism, which itself comes awfully close to that dreaded condition known as Atheism. Can’t have that.

    -Geo

  15. To Geo:

    Though many people do take this viewpoint, being religious AND accepting evolution in no way means you MUST believe in a God who “simply sets things in motion and just sits back and lets things unfold”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: