Presidential Candidate Qualifications

We've heard this all before right? Candidate A is more qualified than candidate B. And then we use some sort of criteria, such as past experience to determine who to vote for. However, perhaps that is not the main thing we should look for (aside from checking if the candidate agrees with us ideologically, which I was assuming already). Another possible way of looking at qualifications for President could be that we examine the way in which the individual makes decisions, such as how they use or abuse logic, or how much weight they give to empirical evidence. This seems to be pretty straight forward. Now, the contentious part will be what belief-forming process is best. According to Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist and Oxford university professor (no easy feat to accomplish on its own) a candidate rejecting evolution is a good indicator of the individual's belief-forming process and shows that it is essentially defective and therefore disqualifies the candidate for the Presidency, which he ultimately applies to almost all members of the current GOP primary participants.

Dawkins claims that evolution is a fact. There is no debate about it, like there is with string theory. Therefore people denying it have shown themselves to be suspect in the ability to reason and assess evidence. Dawkins says "A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. "

I have a few questions to any reader of this thread. First of all, is Dawkins right, and why or why not? Second of all, if you do not think belief in mainstream science is a sign that an individual probably has a defective belief-forming process, what would be a better litmus test, i.e. alternative belief-forming process, to determine if a candidate were able to intellectually deal with the rigors of the Presidency?

LINK TO WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE ---------------------------------------------------------------------->http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ion-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html

 

I look to see if a candidate's religion has affected their past decisions. I could care less what religion a candidate adheres to as long as individual liberty is their top priority.

 

The standards vary for different parties.

For Democraps, the prisident should have some intelligence, a law degree, not be elite, may need to serve in the military, and show their worth by working ther way up in life. Suck up to unions for votes, and be for spending massive amounts of money in healthcare and public schools, at the cost of public safety.

For Republicans: be privilaged, have family connections, obedient, stick to the 1920s status quo, do what large energy and defense corporations say, comply with investment bankers requests, and do not listen to any democrats. Also, suck up to religious fools and preach hate. Just keep the dumb Americans fat, happy, and stupid.

For T-baggers: just have a cosmotology degree, look good, and rant about how much you hate governemnt. That's right, hate the job you want to do, and also obey those who paid for your campain. No need for intelligence, just don't answer any questions.