You're not the only one to find this a painful debate to watch, and I don't even mean getting into the substance of it.

I thought that was an interesting, if imprecise, question, too. Thanks for telling me which candidates were willing (eager?) to commit themselves on this question.

I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of of difference whether or not the president of the U.S. "believes in evolution," but it's interesting.

I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of of difference whether or not the president of the U.S. "believes in evolution," but it's interesting.

It more or less shows the candidate's esteem when it comes to scientists and/or experts in fields of study and their observable facts.

I find that absolutely extraordinary!

I actually thought the debate was as good as I've seen for such a big cattle call; there's not much you can do with ten guys and 90 minutes.

What's more interesting is that seven of the ten did buy into evolution, including all of the top three. That's probably a higher percentage than the Republican electorate.

McCain did hedge his bets by saying that he saw God's handiwork in the Grand Canyon after signing off on evolution.

The question itself contains the answer: evolution as the explanation for the existence of the present universe is not a fact that can be proven; it is matter of "belief". If it were a provable fact, one's belief would be irrelevant. Water freezes at 0 degrees Centigrade, regardless of what the President thinks. An apple falls to the ground, even if Newton isn't under the tree to "discover" gravity. Inter-species evolution, on the other hand, cannot be proven. Some will respond that evolution can be proven, and they are right as long as they are talking about intra-species evolution of an existing species. Bacteria evolve immunity to anti-biotics, for instance. People today are generally taller than people centuries ago, for another instance. These instances are examples of provable facts. There is no way to prove, however, that any species mutated into another. More fundamentally, there is no way to prove that the universe evolved into its present form from the explosion of a primordial mass of dust and gas. Ultimately, evolution as an explanation for our existence rests on as much faith and belief as much as any religious belief. To illustrate this point consider both the rellgious and evoltionist points of view. A common religious belief is that G-d existed before time, before the beginning, and spoke the universe into existence. In contrast, the evolutionist must say that dust and gas existed before time, before the beginning (the Big Banging) in order for evolution to thereafter occur. Reasoning from the beginning demonstrates that evolution, as an explanation for existence, is as much dependent on faith as any religion. Indeed, it takes more faith to accept that random chemical reactions over billions of years can produce the miracle of Mozart, than to think that Mozart and his music came from the hands of a supreme G-d.

Of those that are college educated, roughly 1/3 reject evolution. When you put all of the population into the mix, the numbers get a little higher.

As Sherry said, the question was imprecise. In its most limited form, evolution could mean merely natural selection acting on a species' innate potential for variability--e.g. racial differences among humans. In its extreme form, it could mean explaining the existence of all life by undirected mutations from an original single-cell organism--or even from non-living matter--and implicitly denying the veracity of the Biblical account of creation.

If the question had been posed to me, I think my answer would have been something like "I believe that evolution is the best scientific model today for explaining how all life on Earth came to be. I also believe that God designed all the living things on this planet (and the planet itself, for that matter). How those two ideas interact with each other is a complicated philosophical and religious question."

Tom, you seem to be conflating evolution with abiogenesis and/or a few others. They are not one in the same, nor are either built off of the other. The theory of evolution is based on the theory of the big bang as much as it is on the theory of gravity. Which is to say that it isn't.

I would say that less than 1/100 of 1 % of the population of the country understand what evolution really means and that includes Ph.Ds in biology. Evolution is change over time but the issue is not that change has occurred by what is the cause for all the changes.

So it is a silly question when probably not one of the candidates really understand all the issues. So McCain can say he believes in evolution. So what. Ask him what caused all the changes over the 4 1/2 billion years of life on earth. Believe me no one has a clue, only speculation. Every explanation seems to ideology based. That is why Tom is right and anyone who says they know is really exhibiting faith rather than scientific understanding.

the question might not have been exact but a reasonable reader, viewer, candidate know shta he is being asked how he feels--does he accept what Darwinian theory expresses or does he go along with the Creationist explanation. Marks twiting around with the creationist nonsense is evasive and unk nowing...Humans ask three things: where did we come from, why are we here; where are we going after we die...Religion has one set of answers. Evolution implies another: we are here by chance, a big bang; we are here to express our genes and beget the species; we die and that is our end but our species lives on. Sort of Lion Kin g but much more accdeptable than hanging out in the sky with other nice people in white and passing the time of day--or eternity...

Eric-- That's a great answer, and the right one, IMHO.

Don't you think this is just straight political calculation?
If you say that you don't believe in evolution, you are unlikely to alienate most secular conservatives, who have resigned themselves to the the popularity of "the controversy" among their political associates.
On the other hand, you become a hero among those who feel themselves oppressed by the Darwinists.

moniker, while you may be technically accurate in disconnecting "evolution" from "abiogenesis", the reality of the world in which we live is that the argument has so ofetn been framed as "evolution vs. creation" that for most the concepts are synonymous. How else to explain the millions of Darwin fish on the backs of cars mimicing and mocking the Christ fish?

For a meaningful answer a distinction must be drawn, but for a 5-second show of hands it makes more sense to assume the question is using the convetional definition. In any event, this ambiguity makes the resulting "data" completely worthless except as rhetorical fodder in proving that candidate X is an anti-science Christianist low-brow.

Since I like science, observable facts, and real experts, I like Creationism.

However, I do think that there should be a wall of separation between Science and Government because Government corrupts Science.

And Change over time is not enough--change over time includes Chihuahua and Great Danes.

And yes, there is a preference cascade coming since most people don't buy evolution, but are intimidated by 'experts' who get their funding from the gov't. But like the Berlin Wall, one day this wall will fall.

Okay, thats my ranting points.

What I'd like to see is some of these candidates address this point in a nice five minute speech, so we could get a real feeling for where they stand, and why they stand there.

Moniker, I respectfully submit that it is not me, but the original questioner, who confused abiogenesis with evolution. The average lay listener would assume that the term "evolution" as used in the question referred to how the universe came in to being. This understanding of evolution is demonstrated by McCain's response to the question. He stated that he could see the hand of G-d in the formation of the Grand Canyon, an answer that clearly indicates he thought the term "evolution" as used in the question included the formation of the physical world, and not just species.

To respond more directly to your comment, one cannot innoculate evolution from criticism by saying it only explains how life went from species A to species B. To so limit the definition of evolution means that it is an incomplete theory, not worthy of such unquestioning devotion by its believers. What makes evolution so controversial is that, by claiming man evolved from other species, the theory denies G-d created man. In evaluating Darwin's theory of the origin of man, it is logical, and fair, for the critic to ask from whence came each of the multitude of species whose mutations eventually resulted in man? That inquiry eventually leads one back to the very beginning. Until evolution can explain how life came from dust, and then where the dust came from, the theory is a house of cards.

Evolution and Monkeys

I want to know where monkeys came from. What did they evolve from?

If monkeys didn't evolve, then God must have created them also, along with humans (or, God created monkeys and then had us evolve from them - smile).

So, trace back. What is the last animal that evolved, before God decided to create the "next" one. Did some animals evolve from the other animals (and plants and bugs) that God created?

If some animals evolved, and others were created, why did God choose to meddle with some but not others?

If no animals evolved, then they were and are all created. So, there is God, creating new viruses and bacteria, just to get around antibiotics and our immune systems and kill us. A vengeful God.

I prefer to think of a loving God who supports evolution and doesn't go around creating things to make us miserable.

"And Change over time is not enough--change over time includes Chihuahua and Great Danes."

Yes, it does include those, but that shows why change over time IS enough. We can get chihuahua's and great danes in a few centuries time, if not less. What can we get when we expand that to a few thousand? How about ten or twenty thousand? 100,000? One million? ten million? 100 million? A billion? We humans don't have the right type of brain structure to think in terms beyond the normal span of human life, but we do observe great change over very short periods, so it's a no brainer that we get EVEN GREATER change when we really ramp up the length of time.

"To so limit the definition of evolution means that it is an incomplete theory, not worthy of such unquestioning devotion by its believers."

To limit the definition of evolution is science. Any theory, like gravity or germ theory, claims only to be an explanatory filter for a specific set or type of phenomena. I don't use germ theory to explain how babies are made and I don't use the theory of gravity to better understand why some of bulbs in my office are white and others are yellowish. The theory of evolution is a filter for explaining the diversity of species that we observe; that requires a sort of biological geneology and completeness demands that we trace it as far back as possible, but that's it.

How the first life form was generated does not further our understanding of the modern diversity of life, and therefore falls outside the questions that evolution answers.

You are setting up false expectations as a way to discredit evolution, but in doing so you only discredit yourself.

"We can get chihuahua's and great danes in a few centuries time, if not less. What can we get when we expand that to a few thousand? How about ten or twenty thousand? 100,000? One million? ten million? 100 million? A billion? We humans don't have the right type of brain structure to think in terms beyond the normal span of human life, but we do observe great change over very short periods, so it's a no brainer that we get EVEN GREATER change when we really ramp up the length of time."

If we lack the brain structure to think beyond spans of under a century, how in the world did you come up with that thought?

"It more or less shows the candidate's esteem when it comes to scientists and/or experts in fields of study and their observable facts." Not necessarily. For example, I buy into evolution, but I'm unconvinced by the evidence on anthropogenic global warming.

"People today are generally taller than people centuries ago, for another instance."

I thought that particulat trait was traceable to dietary changes, at least in part. I do recall (from Paul Johnson's history on America, IIRC) that American colonists were growing taller than the people in England, and that the colonists ate a lot more meat.

I'm sure PETA would have something to say about this...

How the first life form was generated does not further our understanding of the modern diversity of life, and therefore falls outside the questions that evolution answers.
Poppycock...this is exactly how Darwinists get out of challenges to their theology. At least Christians are honest enough to state their beliefs are based on faith.

"At least Christians are honest enough to state their beliefs are based on faith."

Poppycock...this is exactly how the religious get out of challenges to their theology.

Dave L,

No, it's not technically "poppycock". Distinguo.

The Christian merely appeals to authority: the word of God. God will have no challengers to that authority in the eternal frame; in other words, while you're free to disbelieve, you will pay a price for it for all eternity.

God is eminently fair in this eternal schema, for on the one hand He has laid out His bona fides and authority in all of creation, beyond the power of any but the most numb-skulled rebel, to witness. On the other hand, having witnessed it since childhood, you are left with the liberty to say "no!" and of course, many do.

Your agrument is not with anyone here. In fact, your argument is not even with God, for He brooks no argument. Your argument, as you will see, is with the worms in your casket. And theories aside, we all know who wins that one, eh?

I agree with John McCain - there is not necessarily a conflict between evolution and belief in God. However, (and please do not think this arrogant), as a biologist and a spiritual seeker, i am astounded by the level of ignorance displayed in these comments regarding evolutionary theory. If anyone here is sincerley interested in understanding current scientic thinking on how life on Earth in its current form came to be, I suggest finding a good 'Evolution 101' type text book and reading it with an open mind, putting prejudice aside. You may reject all or part of what you learn, but at least you will be informed.