Recently, Bob Noel posted:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge


That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge,
it is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as
has been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
science of Presidential candidates?

If they can't tell the difference between science and religion, they don't
qualify for any position that has to make decisions based in science.

Neil