<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blog.newsweek.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Crooks and Liars: Where do the candidates stand on evolution?</title><link>http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/theruckus/archive/2008/01/12/crooks-and-liars-where-do-the-candidates-stand-on-evolution.aspx</link><description>Ronald Bailey, Reason’s science correspondent, took on an interesting project this week: documenting where every major-party presidential candidate stands on evolutionary biology.
Oddly enough, this has taken on far more political significance this election</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Debug Build: 2.18)</generator></channel></rss>