Is the bad guys are sticking with their God too. And a lot of people are dying in the cross-fire.

If it's between the National Science Foundation and his particular Church's interpretation of the Bible as written by a 16th century English monarch, the NSF loses.

Just who I want in the White House!

"But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Maybe this is obvious to most people here, but since it isn't to him, science changing with new discoveries is a good thing, and means it is filling in more and more pieces of the puzzle. A belief that was hatched, during a time when people thought the earth was flat, to explain the sun, the moon, earthquakes, floods etc., and that doesn't change to take into account new discoveries, and it merely used to suppress people because it inherently doesn't invite debate....

Ah, what's the use, I might as well be arguing that the sky is blue.

So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict.

Please, please say there was a follow-up question!

Governor Huckabee, suppose U.N. weapons inspectors and our own intelligence on the ground showed unequivocably that Iran did not have functioning nuclear weapons and could not possible have them within 5 years minimum, but you prayed on it and God told you that Iran did have them and was an imminent threat.

Would you side with God?

but those are not changes driven by random selection, but as better understanding and observations drive it asymptotically towards "truth". Maybe God resides there, but Huckabee equates God with the Bible, which is rather stupid.

THERE is a strategy that, historically, always works! I'd like to ask him what he thinks of that Galileo fellow.

The God of the medieval Catholic Church is not the same as the God of the 20th century Christian fundamentalist - hell, it's not even the same as the 20th century Catholic Church!

Let's please stop pretending that God is an universal, ahistorical concept!

Or you WILL get a Roundhouse kick to the face!!!

can we refer to them collectively as "Chuckabee?"

Arkansas Ranger

See, when a Democrat has a "nuanced" explanation for something, that's bad. When a Republican is "nuanced," he or she's just being reasonable.

This is basically what it has all come down to, isn't it? Our country, distilled into two sentences. The funny thing to me is, it's the people who refuse to accept evolution who are the same people who refuse to grow/change/evolve on any level whatsoever. It's also these very same people who believe in enforcing the most inhumane interpretations of social Darwinism. "Adapt, or die." I'm so sick of these neanderthals dragging the rest of us down.

"See, when a Democrat has a "nuanced" explanation for something, that's bad. When a Republican is "nuanced," he or she's just being reasonable."

Sigh. You are sadly correct.

This post and its associated letters aren't helping folks. They show liberals at their worst (like Maher on a bad day can) -- completely intolerant of someone of faith. Huckabee's faith isn't like those we've seen recently who use it for hate. He focuses (correctly, IMHO) on God's love in his faith. And we should applaud that. I don't see anything wrong with saying God doesn't change. The examples given are about our understanding of God, not God changing what he thinks is right/wrong.

It's completely legit to label Huckabee's switch from hand raising to nuance as flip-flopping (and Alter's mis-representation of the question that was asked is inexcusable). But to lump Huckabee in with Bush supposedly listening to direction from God on war isn't fighting fair.

For pointing out the fallacy of "god doesn't change." Not only does biblical interpretation and the concept of god change constantly over the years (the 'god' image thrust at us today is far different from the one of the civil rights movement only 40 years ago), it isn't even consistent during the same time period from sect to sect (Evangelical vs. Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Jewish).

But to lump Huckabee in with Bush supposedly listening to direction from God on war isn't fighting fair.

Can you explain why this isn't a fair query?

For what it's worth, I think this forum too often brings out intolerance towards people of faith. But if Huckabee says he'll side with God over science when they conflict, I believe he should absolutely explain what he means by this. Because a reasonable interpretation of this statement can lump him in with Bush's beliefs.

will step into the polling booth and think about how well "sticking with God" has served us over these past eight years.

We're about to be force fed Huckabee as the candidate you'd rather have a bbq with. Considering the type of bbq George Bush has served up I would suggest voters choose their next president based on his or her policy positions and plans for correcting the disastrous course the country is currently heading on. Frankly, aside from "all god all the time" and a daffiness that passes as "likeable" I don't see Huckabee presenting himself in any way that suggests inspired, competent or presidential.

Oh, he lost 600lbs. I guess that counts for something.

Huckabee states, "science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Huckabee's factually incorrect to say that nothing ever "changes" with God. For example, our conceptualization of God as a male figure is rather recent when one looks at the history of religions. Goddess worship used to be the order of the day.

Regarding science, it's not factually correct for Huckabee to say that science is subject to arbitrary "change" every generation. Rather, science continually builds upon previous discovery, and allows us to achieve things undreamed of generations ago. Citing the changing nature of scientific progress as a reason *not* to believe what science shows us can only be described as foolish.