Should a Creationist be allowed to hold a position of Authority?

Like Jar, I am a creationist, but do not argue for a young earth. That is not to say that I believe in the BB as does Jar.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Buy testing only for the ability to make decisions based on the evidence. A belief in a young earth shows that the person is incapable of making decisions based on evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then why not exclude you?You believe GOD created the universe, but have no evidence to back that claim up. And while I will admit that a lack of evidence in your favour would not be as good as a single bit of actual evidence against your claim. The fact that we have been coming up dry on good solid scientific proof for the creation, for at least couple of thousand years, leads me to conclude you are making claims, and believing in things that have no scientific grounding at all. In other words a belief in GOD is just as hokey as a belief in a Young Earth. And if you will exclude a YEC for his crazy notions that have no scientific grounding then why not you too?--- changed by edit ----and as you believe in things not supported by the evidence of Science you should not hold positions of Authority.I here by ask that Jar's admin status be revoked.......This message has been edited by ohnhai, 11-02-2006 10:22 AM

Great question and one I'm reaaly glad you brought up.There is a world of difference between believing in something for which there is no proof, and believing in something which is absolutely refuted.A belief in GOD is something without support, but there is also nothing to refute it. It is at worst, a small private madness.On the otherhand, there is absolute proof that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. To believe in a Young Earth you must deny the evidence of reality. A belief in a Young Earth is not made in the absence of evidence but in spite of the evidence. It is willull ignorance.If I believed in GOD when there was absolute evidence that there was no GOD, then it would be similar. However, that is not the case.YEC is a belief held in spite of all of the overwhelming evidence and a clear indication that the person makes decisions on personal emotional needs as opposed to the external evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ok , but isnt an ability to stay resolutley on message in the face of direct evidence against your stance a key skill of Politicians ? Aren't YECs demonstrating huge amounts of the key political skills?doesnt that make them MORE suited to be in power than others?I still think it's un-fair though to single out a particular set of beliefs.

quote:

---

doesnt that make them MORE suited to be in power than others?

---

I guess, if you believe in the acquisition of power for its own sake.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

It may well make them better conmen and politicians, but not decision makers. So I guess it all depends on whether you want the decisions that will effect you to actually have a basis in evidence and reality. But it's not based on the belief, but what that belief says about their capability to make decisions based on evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i know plenty of people who take belief in the bible on faith while knowing resolutely that it is not the infallible truth it claims to be. yet, they believe in it. these individuals are quite capable of making educated, evidentiary decisions; they simply choose not to in a very personal area of their lives.the constitution includes the banning of any test based on anything approaching religion for a reason. because the founding fathers knew that someday someone self-righteous in his own intelligence or belief would want to prevent someone with an opposing belief from holding office. that is what you are proposing, jar. the point of democracy is opposing voices. if we can't have opposing voices in our government, then we've nothing. the importance is to maintain the strict boundaries on presidential power thereby preventing any kind of singular rule. you choose a candidate by your vote. that is your choice and duty.ABEonce upon a time there were things called voter registration exams. they ask questions like 'could your grandfather vote' and 'do you know what this word means'. they were literacy and social status tests specifically designed to prevent blacks from voting. they didn't ask 'are you black'. they didn't have to. your test doesn't have to ask 'are you a fundamentalist christian' for 'how old is the earth' to be a religious test. it's patently unconstitutional.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 02-10-2006 11:39 PMThis message has been edited by brennakimi, 02-10-2006 11:40 PM

I strongly believe that those who seek power should never be given it....

I forget who said it, might have been Heinlein, but he said that you can only trust those public servants who have to be carried kicking and screaming into office. --Percy

what if the upper house was chosen like jury service that would be fun.. though you would have to have a screening process to weed out those who lack a brain....

No, and simply asserting that is what I am trying to do without explaining it really doesn't further the conversation.The issue is not related to someones beliefs, but rather their capability to make a decision that goes against their personal beliefs when the evidence is absolutely overwhelmingly counter to their beliefs. The issue is not the beliefs but the persons ability to set aside personal beliefs.Your edit adding voting rights tests is OT in this discussion since the issue of voting has nothing to do with the thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have to disagree, jar.I don't think a parallel drawn between voting rights tests and any preemptive bars from office is off-topic, but is instead a useful and illustrative contrast.I think brenna makes two acutely germane points: that all people tend to hold evidence-proof beliefs, and that evidence-blind people are best kept from office by voters who reject their positions.To preempt the voters is as anathema to democracy as voting-rights tests. If that is not what you are trying to do, then clarifying that certainly does further the conversation.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I would be happy to just see things like this brought up in debates and confirmations. For example it is reasonable to ask a Supreme Court candidate if he or she is able to set aside believe and rule on the facts in evidence. That is all my test does.It asks a YEC if they are willing to put aside their belief in the age of the earth in light of the weight of evidence.If they cannot do so, then they are not qualified.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Wouldn't it be interesting if US representatives were chosen by lottery in each Congressional district? Not only would elections be cheaper, but we would get the best of "both worlds": each representative would still represent a small geographical area, and yet the House as a whole will actually represent the actual US population in proper proportion.Added by edit:Yes, yes, I know; this is off-topic.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-Feb-2006 06:52 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt