You obviously didn’t get the point I was trying to make. I do not know what “theory of evolution” is supposed to mean. Give me an unambiguous question and I will answer it.

If, as some have suggested here, the question is a euphemistic way of asking “are you a religious nut or not?”, then I would answer no (to this latter question). I’m probably third, maybe fourth, generation agnostic. I been in three churches my entire life, each time for a wedding. I couldn’t be farther away from religious. But the polar opposite of being religious is not one who blindly accepts anything with the label science attached to it – whatever it means to “accept” something scientific – I’m not sure.

If, as Richard suggests, the question is posed to gauge the level of scientific sophistication, let me offer this as food for thought: I am a paid physicist. I have a Bachelor’ and Master’s degree in mathematical physics. I have published in peer-reviewed mathematics and physics journals. I have guest lectured advanced quantum mechanics courses for graduate students. So let me ask you, do I have enough scientific sophistication for you?

Most interested in science are probably like I was as a high-school and even undergraduate student – just waiting to finish my degree because at the end I would know how the world really works. After all science has the answers, right? I focused on quantum physics because, at the end – since it is “the” fundamental theory of nature, I would have working knowledge of the mechanics of my natural surroundings, right?

As a near Ph.D., I am now intimately familiar with what “science” is – or more precisely – what it isn’t.

Turns out, this old proverb couldn’t sum it up any better: The more you know, the more you will know how little you know.

Going back to the original question: I have high-school level knowledge of evolution. So, I “accept” the theory of evolution as much as I “accept” that poster in your high-school science class of the planets going around the sun in concentric circles as the “theory of our solar system” – which is about as far as I can throw it.

I can only assume evolutionary science is like the science I do know: it’s foundations are riddled with unknown and unstated assumptions which are not questioned. Worse than that, it’s students are told not to question them, to “shut up and calculate” until the point were they become financial and socially vested in toeing the party line.

I’ve come to have a great deal of respect for the scientific contrarians – because if you are not constantly questioning your assumptions, it might as well be a religion.

one question: do YOU accept the theory of evolution. Please explain?

seriously, I’m really curious.

I wonder if all that religious connotation, posturing and pandering, as well as all the nit-picking about the definition and public understanding of the word “theory” could be avoided if a different question was asked, one that doesn’t use the “E” word, like:

How old do you think the Earth is?

An answer hovering around 6,000 to 10,000 years will give us one impression of the candidate’s level of scientific sophistication, while an answer more like 4.5 billion years, or even “Oh, millions and millions of years, I’ve heard” will give us a different impression of their level of scientific saavy, and either answer might also give us an inkling about their general attitude toward the value of science.

That’s awful cherry picking and misrepresentation, not much different from how you treated the Wikipedia article. Not all of science is like gravity. Newton was unhappy with his hypotheses on gravity, they were not so important to his theory as the descriptive power of his laws, and gravity remains unresolved to this day. Newton’s laws on gravity still work, within limits, general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in these lower limits of gravity. This is why on some specific phenomena you can still use Newton’s laws e.g. NASA, where as an astrophysicist dealing with gravity beyond the limits of Newton’s laws would not. No sensible person is going to argue with Newton’s laws when it comes to things like aeronautics, which is the point people are making when they ask whether someone accepts the theory of gravity.

First of all, asking “do you accept gravity?” is a question suitable only for parody so let us concentrate on “do you accept the THEORY OF gravity?”

Regardless whether you answer yes or no to question, to answer it all and, more so, to even ask it displays your gross ignorance of what science is all about.

THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITY. There are many theories of gravity. They do not build on one other and do indeed “throw out many principles” of their predecessors. In fact, the assumptions of any two competing theories are contradictory. Newton’s theory posits a balance between accelerated motion and a force which is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to other objects. Einstein’s theory posits spacetime whose curvature guides the path of objects. And, quantum field theory’s foundations are purely abstract mathematical concepts such as Hilbert spaces and operator alegbras.

So what theory do you accept? Quantum field theory is our most “fundamental” theory of nature so I should accept that one, right? If I were a NASA scientist programming the shuttle with the lives of American heroes in the palm of my hand, I should “accept” that theory, right? Wrong.

Turns out you can land a man on the moon using a our most primitive theory of gravity. So does a rocket scientist accept Newton? Gladly. Would an astrophysicist accept Newton? Doubtful, Einstein is where it’s at. By the time you get to quantum physicists, we only use Newton’s theory as a comedic device.

By forcing people to parrot the yes response to the question is forcing them to blindly follow to new majority instead of the old. The question does not make sense and that should be the answer to it.

I’m not seeing why you criticize responses like Proft’s, Quinn’s, and Andrzejewski’s, as having objectionable elements. In fact, I would argue that these responses, arguing that their Christian beliefs are compatible with belief in evolution, are probably more helpful than Hynes’s.

I think it’s because it’s something of a non-sequitur. Answering “Do you accept evolution?” with “Yes but I think God is absolutely smashing” is like answering “What sort of car do you drive?” with “A dodge caravan but I am rather partial to scrambled egg with cheese”.

They’ve dropped the mythology of creationism and that’s good enough for me. So don’t beat on someone for believing that God drives evolution or caused the big bang. It’s progress, and hopefully in time they figure things out.

The internet has changed my life.

I let the ones saying yes but off the hook too though with a groan. They know the kiss of death when put to them.

After all, no one’s asking them if they accept the theory of gravity, are they?

What is the point of this question anyway? To identify the scientific “luddites” for further ridicule?

Yes.

Is there a problem with identifying the retrogressive candidates running for Governor of an entire state?

In a world that is every day more and more dependent on a steady supply of good, reliable science, expecting and demanding that our leaders have some basic understanding and appreciation of science and how it works is essential to our survival.

In a world that is every day more and more threatened by people who blindly follow superstitious, anti-scientific dogma, identifying political candidates with such a mindset is essential to our survival.

Knowing how a candidate answers this question gives us an idea if he’s going to lead Illinois forward into the 21st century, or back into the 19th, 18th, 17th…

Knowing how a candidate answers this question gives us an insight into how much he is influenced by the force of reason or by the force of authority.

And that will give us an insight into how he will govern, by force of reason or by force of authority.