The British science magazine Nature asked the following question of each US Presidential candidate [US election: Questioning the candidates].
Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth?My answer, of course, is "no"; natural selection is not a sufficient explanation. You also need random genetic drift and a host of other things that are part of evolutionary theory.
How would you answer the question, dear readers?
Both candidates did a pretty good job of answering this question.
Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated.They both avoided answering the direct question. Instead, they interpreted the question to be whether they believe in evolution. They both believe in evolution.
McCain said last year, in a Republican primary debate: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."
Since this is one of the leading science magazines in the world I'm certain that the question was not about believing in evolution. It was designed to discover whether McCain and Obama were adaptationists. There's no other reasonable explanation since it's impossible that Nature wouldn't know the difference between "evolution" and "natural selection." At least I think it's impossible ...