Comment: the relevance of the post...

(See in situ)

the relevance of the post...

I doubt there are any candidates that you agree with 100%. So, you pretty much have to add up all of the good things and the bad things... if the bad things have a high enough score, then you turn off the candidate and don't vote for him/her.

So... it's important to know as many of the goods and bads of the candidate... and how much weight each position carries. Maybe to some it doesn't matter, but to many of us, belief in creationism or evolution carries a lot of positive or negative weight. It could actually be the issue that swings you one way or another.

To me, having studied geology/paleontology all of my working career, those creationists running for office probably won't get my vote, as it shows an ignorance for reality and logic -- just my humble opinion, but still my opinion.

Ron Paul says neither can be proven and he wouldn't run for office if it was to be decided on that alone. Ron Paul is so strong in every other way, that he still is WAY into the positive category for me, and I have supported him for 20 years.

Rand... if he were to come out and say he doesn't believe in evolution... well, I'd have to think hard about it, but probably would support him.

I can't think of anybody else I would support if they were creationists, unless they really made up for it in many other ways.

So, while not a deal killer, knowing which side of the fence a candidate is on regarding evolution/creation IS a topic worthy of discussion. If it offends you, don't participate in the dialog.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose