1. Sioux Indian here. Ahh the White Man always has been fairly stupid. Now he disputes Science with its many reliable tools of measurement. Dinosaurs are squeezed into somewhere between 5-6,ooo yrs ago. Stupid-ity plus!Oh yea and the White Man's black book states that two-legged (Humans)should "Multiply (unlimited) and Subdue the Earth". It ain't working folks. What? 7 Billion (subduers')now?

Ed McGaa at 9:08AM on May 6th 2007

2. Evolution is GOD'S method of creation. I suspect it is not yet complete. Proof you ask? Ok, why do you think we need a new flu shot every year? Answer, because the flu virus evolves a little every now and then making a new virus that adapts to evade the current vacines. If it can happen at the very basic single cell level, then it can happen at other levels. The only hard part is the very first single cell living thing which we believe came about a billion years or so ago. The rest was easy. Granted there are many missing links along the way because dead things are very fragile and will only last a long time as fossils in very special circumstances.

Tadd Kowalzyk at 10:32AM on May 4th 2007

3. They do not believe in the theory of evolution?

I think there are a few monkeys happy not to be related to these candidates.

SR at 10:36AM on May 4th 2007

4. I wish that every "liberal" viewed person in the U.S. would realize that evolution is a THEORY...a theory is a "flawed" human's view....it is not proven truth....the Bible is TRUTH!!!

Kent at 2:47PM on May 4th 2007

5. The Presidency is a complicated job in a complicated world. We need someone with some degree of intelligence so that they may be better able to make complex decisions. While parts of the theory of evolution by natural selection are not easy to understand, an intelligent, inquisitive individual should have little difficulty with it. Please......no more ignorant rednecks in the Whitehouse.

steveB at 10:40AM on May 4th 2007

6. A definition of evolution would have been helpful. "Change over time" is clearly accepted scientific fact, the process of speciation through natural selection is not as widely accepted. Among scientists there are debates over puntualism, uniformitarianism, neo-Larmarkianism, etc.

sean at 7:28PM on May 7th 2007

7. Why aren't they a little more specific with this question (BECAUSE THIS IS THE MEDIA)? They should have specificaly asked 1. do you believe in Micro Evolution? AND 2. Do you believe in Macro Evolution?

Of course we know that living cells change to adapt to thier environment! No one can argue with the evidence that science has pressented on this!

However,

To think that the theory of evolution as Darwin explained can have any legitimate basis is not scientific in itself. Moreover based on the evidence it takes more faith to believe in Macro evolution if investigated than it does to believe in a Creator!

So as the media, lets take an open ended question throw it in the face of the republicans who are more opt to have Christian values and beliefs, and then try to make them look like idiots for those beliefs. Did they ask this question of the Democratic Candidates? I would bet no, because answering yes as a Demecrat would cost you your nomination.

Why can't we just have the best candidate regardless of sex, creed, color, or faith? FOR GODS SAKE leave him out of this. He will be back to rule those who believe and judge those who do not soon enough, possibly before the next President leaves office!

Brian Moody at 10:42AM on May 4th 2007

8. Where is the missing link? Find it and you can prove evolution. Until then there are more gaps in evolution than the Bible. In fact prove that the Bible is wrong and you have it made. Or do you. Open your eyes .

john at 9:05PM on May 14th 2007

9. The sad misinterpretation of evolution is amazing to me. and we call ourselves an educated nation. maybe picking up a science book and looking at the world with a wider lens of understanding than through references to a book that was written many a moon ago would gain a lot more respect in my book.

john at 10:46AM on May 4th 2007

10. This is precisely why it is a mistake to have any of these candidates as our president. If one can look squarely in the face of reliable, proven and overwhelmingly acceptable fact and continue an unabashed and altogether ignorant support of a disproven theory, what will that same person do in an office when presented with various facts of national and international importance? This same type of unwillingness to view science as fact and expert opinion as a guide to policy making is what we currently must tolerate from our president. Let's not make a choice as a nation that will lead to more legislation of morality, a continuing ignorance toward global climate change, and waging costly wars in terms of lives and spending.

patrick at 10:48AM on May 4th 2007

11. hey sioux injun,if the white man is so stupid,what are you guys since we kicked your ass into a trailor park with a casino?

grant at 10:49AM on May 4th 2007

12. HELLO?? Do you really think that it's "okay" to have a FEW missing links?? Duhhh!! And virus's mutate they DO NOT EVOLVE!!! And ALL COLORED men are stupid when they take as fact a theory that each day is being exposed as false. Billions of years?? Where's the "evolution" in ANYTHING over the past thousands of years??? Show me ONE TRANSTITIONAL FOSSIL OF ANYTHING!! It's just not there, gentlemen. Hey, Mr. Soiux Indian?? Explain the cave drawings that include dinasours with human beings, who cares what color they are? The human beings that is. It truly amazes me how narrow minded people are when it comes to ruling out a Master Creator, a loving God who did create "dumb mankind."

Kathy Corry at 10:51AM on May 4th 2007

13. Thank you #4. You are absolutely correct. People want to say that believing in evolution is smart when they have no idea what it is they believe in. I would think that people who say they don't believe in macro evolution are smarter and have probably study the subject and actually know what they are talking about. Evolution is a theory not a fact.

fish4allenelbk at 10:53AM on May 4th 2007

14. The more we learn looking outside our tiny little “flying planet”, and/or looking into the smallest dimensions of, say, DNA. Considering the destructive nature of man, our ultimate known form of intelligent life, the harder it is to believe that "evolution" is the only possible or intelligent answer to the broad question of how did we get here. Without choosing any theory or belief wouldn't it be most intelligent to allow for all possible theories until solid proof defends itself?

Melissa at 4:33PM on May 4th 2007

15. It does seem a rather odd question to ask a presidential candidate; but the media frequently surprises me with its odd questions.
As to the intelligence of someone who is disputes evolution, who can tell? I am a retired teacher who won state awards in the area of science and math, the mother of two National Merit Scholars, one of whom is a chemist, and I'm also a creationist. But I certainly would admit that I cannot hold a candle to the dogmatic arrogance of some evolutionists. I believe they certainly may be intelligent, but reluctant to want to admit to the existence of a creator.

Patty Hendricks at 10:52AM on May 4th 2007