If you read my blog, you probably read other blogs that promote science and try to stamp out antiscience. If so, you’ve probably seen or heard of this incident last night in the Republican presidential debates, where the moderator asked the candidates who "does not .. agree/believe in evolution". Three candidates raised their hands.
I am not sure how to feel about this. As familiar as I am with antiscience in this country, I’m still appalled that anyone who would run for office would state that they think evolution is wrong. Even after six years of this White House, I am still shocked to see such a flagrant attitude against reality.
Maybe I should be happy that it was only three of them. Given that anti-evolution is a platform in some states’ Republican parties, a 30% disavowal rate of reality maybe isn’t so bad.
I’m certainly not surprised at the three who did raise their hands: Brownback (Kansas, natch), Tancredo (from Colorado; my work will be cut out for me when I move, certainly– though he’s not from my district), and Huckabee (Arkansas). McCain equivocated, saying he thinks evolution is real, but then pandered a bit to the young-Earth base by talking about religion and the Grand Canyon.
I remember when the Republican party stood for strong science. It doesn’t even seem that long ago. Wow.
I will be very interested to see what the Democrats have to say on this same issue. I don’t think too many of them will make a strong stand, since it seems these days that every politician feels the need to twist in the wind, and face whatever way each breeze blows. Al Gore has made some particularly galling comments lately, too. Update: Gore may have not been as serious as many say.
I am not a one-issue voter, but peoples’ attitudes toward science — toward reality — is very telling on many of their other attitudes.
And say it with me: evolution is not a belief system! You cannot believe in it or not. It is a matter of scientific fact. It exists, it is real, whether you stick your fingers in your ears and sing la-la-la or not.
Update: Chris Cillizza has written about this on the Washington Post blog. The comments are interesting. Thanks to Derek of Skepticality for the tip!
May 4th, 2007 at 10:13 am
It’ll be interesting to see how the three creationists poll ratings are affected by this, if at all. If their numbers improved, I’m sure McCain would stop equivocating and leap right on that bandwagon.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:16 am
I have nothing against Republicans or Democrats as political entities, nor politicians in general. What galls me is the incessant pandering to the lowest common denominator. The founders of this country were highly intelligent, competant and compassionate beings who spoke their minds, told things as THEY saw them. It was a good beginning, but we’re at the tail end of this republic and it’s obvious there are very few people in politics with the cahones to tell things as they really are. If we don’t succeed in creating new societies(and the only place with the room for that is in space) we’re screwed. Wars, famines, floods, plagues,,,they’re what we have to look forward to, with no REAL leaders of talent to steer this ship in the right direction.
Bummer,,,
GAry 7
May 4th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I’m not surprised that Tancredo was one of the ones who didn’t support evolution. He made it onto my list of scummy individuals last year, when he referred to my hometown of Miami as a “Third World Country,” right before he was supposed to go there to give a speech for a Rotary Club at a small restaurant. When the restaurant asked him not to come, since they couldn’t support the media and protests that would surely follow the man who insulted the city on his visit to it, he pressed his point that that sort of stifling of free speech would, again, only happen in a Third World country. Never mind the fact that the problems would come about from other people exercising their free speech rights in response to Tancredo exercising his free speech rights.
So, in summery, I hope this guy gets the nomination, because with his mouth he’d lose and lose hard.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:55 am
As long as we’re being honest here, I was an evolution disbeliever myself a long long time ago. But the problem was that my high school teachers barely understood it themselves. Just read the chapter titles of “10 Myths About Evolution” and you get a pretty good idea of Biology 101 at South Rowan High School in the late sixties. That being said, I’m sure our founding fathers (well, the majority at least) would be evolution proponents today. I dare say that if Jefferson was left alone to his studies, and didn’t have to worry about the political stuff, he might have landed on the idea himself.
Most of what passes as politicians these days could not come up with the concept of a post office by themselves.
BA
May 4th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Oh man,
At some point, I think we need to put in a requirement for all potential presidents of the United States to actually believe that Science exists!
May 4th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Derek Colanduno wrote:
“At some point, I think we need to put in a requirement for all potential presidents of the United States to actually believe that Science exists!”
The Creationists would probably object to that, claiming that requiring “belief” in science would be an unconstitutional religious test. :/
May 4th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Although I am astounded at Gore’s pandering, it must be remembered that he is a Baptist. I strongly disagree with his slide inclusion, and I agree that it undercuts his work thus far.
I am a native Coloradan, as I can tell you with complete honesty that with the expected exceptions of the more Neanderthal-like people, we just despise Tom Tancredo. How he continues to be reelected is something that I blame on the nutters in his district….they seem to be fairly concentrated along that stretch of I-25.
What can we say about the republican candidates? I hope that one of the three scores the Republican nomination. The national disgrace of it might just shock Congress (read: Democrats) to start putting badly-needed emphasis back on science and proper science education. And besides, it’d be like shooting fish in a barrel. Think of the fun that Dave Letterman or Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert would have!
May 4th, 2007 at 11:19 am
As someone from Colorado, let me just say that I’m deeply ashamed of most of our political elect. Tancredo, and Musgrave are excellent examples of some of the worst idealogies in our politics today.
Uhg…
May 4th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Merr, realized that it should be “AND I can tell you…” in the second paragraph…
May 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I wish this would be the case. In one of his anti-pseudoscience books, Martin Gardner noted that in 1980, Carter had a basically intelligent take on evolution while Reagan was prone to saying things like “it’s just a theory”. If that wasn’t a big deal to the bulk of Americans then, it’s hard to see how it would be a lot better now. I don’t have the book close at hand, so I’ll have to see if I can dig up the exact passage.
Oh, yeah, before I forget: Phil, welcome to this beautiful state. It’s not hard at all to get to really dark skies from Boulder…
May 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
You’re moving to Colorado? (Or am I reading this wrong?) How did I manage to miss this? Where will you be, up in Boulder? I know it’s really easy to get some good sky in Colorado, especially if you go up into the mountains. (Oooh, does this mean I will get the opportunity to
)
stalkfangirl at you at some point?It’s okay, there are sections of Colorado that aren’t horrifying. Just steer clear of the Springs. And besides, we have an AWESOME governor. Bill Ritter is a wonderful human being.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Evolution is not, by itself, a belief system. It’s a scientific theory — a very, very, very well tested theory that it is stupid to refute. But science is indeed a belief system.
Science is the belief that decisions about the nature of reality are best based on observations that can be repeated from one observer to the next, and on theories that explain those observations.
It’s not a bad belief system. It happens to be very successful. But as long as humans can decide to accept scientific conclusions or decide not to, you have to grant that those decisions are in fact beliefs and choices about beliefs.
Is it stupid to disbelieve in science? Sure. But science can’t stand on its own — it has to be either believed or disbelieved.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
OK, I found it. It’s in Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus, chapter 24, “The Preachers”, pages 269-270 in my copy. The passage is a bit too long to quote fully, but here’s a sampler:
Gardner later quotes a passage from Carter in the November, 1980 Scientific American, in which Carter describes what is essentially a theistic evolutionary stance consistent with modern science.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
…and in a completely unrelated story, scientists have sequenced fragments of Neanderthal nuclear DNA…
May 4th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Oh yeah?
It doesn’t matter how good a candidate’s other policies are. We need to let them know that we will never vote for anyone who rejects evolution, on a matter of principle.
A candidate who rejects evolution is simply not capable of governing a nation. Simple as that.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Nobody should “believe” in evolution! They should use it to formulate hypotheses, test its implications for the fossil and DNA records, and base their hypotheses on it.
What does any of that have to do with belief? Believing in evolution is like saying a prayer to F=Gm1m2/r^2.
Science is not a belief system. But I don’t expect any of the candidates of either party to be smart enough to explain that.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I’m truly surprised it’s only three!
May 4th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Maybe the other seven misunderstood the question, and thought raising their hands meant they DID accept evolution.
May 4th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
The problem, o ye who never actually respond, is that English as a language is changing, and taking society along for the ride. As our grammatical morphology simplifies, syntax involving movement of words, hedges, interjections etc. becomes increasingly important. The older, left brained processes yield to right brained ones.
Unfortunately the right brain finds negotiation and alteration of meaning to be much easier than the left, which prefers fixed, naturally motivated sequences. This may be one of the reasons the idea of public ‘face’ is so much more important in such languages than it is in the more left-brained types. Social position outranks truth (truthiness).
The recent flurry of linguistic interest in Dan Everett’s work on Piraha~ (in South America) and whether embedding/recursion is a language universal is part of this- Piraha~ speakers live in the here and now, and eschew art, history, myth, etc. It is a highly musical language where the melody alone can carry the bulk of the linguistic meaning- you can leave the ‘words’ out entirely and still be understood. This is the ultimate extreme of right-brain focus on language processing. Extreme left focus is found in polysynthetic languages, where ritual, history, myth, etc. outweigh flexibility in dealing with new events or concepts.
Ok, so you may NOT see the connection to the debate. But just you watch- this and other cultural changes to right hemisphericality have only just begun, in the overall scheme of things.
Jess Tauber
May 5th, 2007 at 5:27 am
I just saw this on The New York Times website:
U.S. / POLITICS | May 5, 2007
A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin
By PATRICIA COHEN
A dispute has cropped up on the right: Does Darwinian theory actually support conservative philosophy?
May 5th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Quote:
A dispute has cropped up on the right: Does Darwinian theory actually support conservative philosophy?
That sounds like creationists. Using their beliefs as a starting point, and choosing to ignore any evidence that is to the contrary.
May 5th, 2007 at 8:24 am
There are idiots in both parties. Republicans who don’t believe in evolution, and Democrats who think Bush knew 9/11 in advance.
May 5th, 2007 at 11:31 am
It seems it’s not just the US: David Cameron (the leader of the UK’s Conservative Party, not a politician noted for being particularly religious) appears to support letting schools decide whether to teach creationism in their science classes at a local level (see http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_randerson/2007/05/cameron_confused_on_creationis.html).
May 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Californayay should be its own country. i dont think the rest of the country will ever follow science.. not the way this is going.
May 5th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
>
Ross, I hate to disagree, but the fact is, it doesn’t matter if you ‘believe in’ Science, the laws of the Universe tend to go on working – even if there is nobody observing and interpreting them. Light still travels at 300,000kps, species still evolve, gravity still sucks (sorry) whether the kiddies learn about the Theories and Laws or not.
Science EDUCATION is being undercut in this country, ignorance is celebrated (Paris Hilton, Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern – need I say more?) and the GOP appears to be leading the charge to the 14th Century.
May 5th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I recall reading a poll that in Iceland 50% of the population believed in the “little people”. Assuming the “little people” don’t exist I think it is a good analogue to what we have in the United States with creationism. It is a pretty common belief that is indoctrinated at an early age when the brain is young the blinders are put on. And of course it is dead wrong. So I guess the question is can a person be a creationist and still be an effective leader of the United States? I suppose the answer is yes, though I have severe reservations about the persons ability to think outside the box, be an independent thinker, which is an important attribute of the presidency. Shouldn’t a president have a great B.S. detector to eliminate the fog of nonsense, lobby, and spin they confront on a daily basis? Of course they may just be pandering, if that’s the case it would be preferable if they were bold enough to take the right stand. But such boldness doesn’t make for successful politicians so this is what we get. Essentially, the president’s attributes reflect the populous (…alas we’re doomed) so we get what we deserve!
In addition I was impressed only 30% of the candidates took that stand. We’re making progress here! It would have been nice if one of the candidates said as mentioned earlier that they don’t believe evolution rather they accept it as a well established theory. That is possibly more precise than is required for the answer though.
May 5th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I remember Robert Heinlein once wrote something like this:
“The very idea that the lord god of all creation wants and needs the sacherine adoration of his people and become petulant if he doesn’t get it is the most absurd notion ever created by man”.
Now this assumes you believe in a god at all which I seriously doubt Heinlein did. Me, I’m just not too sure. There may be a god but Im with RH here in that there is no way a being powerful enough to create this universe we live in would would give an ounce of cat snot what we do in our little day-to-day lives. It would be like us picking one specific grain of sand and observing every virus on it, then deciding to intervene by letting some live and others die by choosing whether its a “good” virus or not.
Science is what it is. The people who are doing serious research in disciplines like cosmology, biology, and physics, are far smarter than me, and I am willing to mostly take them at face value as being as correct as possible with current technology. That being said, theories are in constant flux and change every day. We all have to be flexible. Thats why I love this site so much. It seems to me that people here are willing to look facts in the face and adjust their thinking as needed. Creationists decide ahead of time what to believe in and no amount of logic or fact can sway them from those beliefs. They allow themselves to become hardwired by propaganda which is spewed out by their church leaders or political leaders. They are ignorant robots with no individuality.
As far as the republicans go, I hope they all choke on their own vomit. Until GW and the ‘neo-cons’ came along I was willing to live and let live but no more. As far as Im concerned, this is political WAR! yeeha!
May 6th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Give me a creationist libertarian over an atheist socialist any day.
May 6th, 2007 at 8:10 am
“Give me a creationist libertarian over an atheist socialist any day.”
Those aren’t the only 2 choices.
May 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
How about an atheist libertarian, or an agnostic/mystic/socialist/anarchist,,,
I wonder if they have this woo-woo mentality in China?
GAry 7
May 7th, 2007 at 7:58 am
I just can’t believe what I see sometimes. I live in Kansas and am writing Mr. Brownback as we speak. He must think we are all a bunch of idiots.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:54 am
>>> I have nothing against Republicans or Democrats as political entities,
>>> nor politicians in general.
Really?!
I mean…
REALLY?!?!?!?!
>>> I wonder if they have this woo-woo mentality in China?
Every country has woo woo. It’s just a different kind. At least China’s you can get it Schezuan style.
(crickets)
Hmm…
>>> we just despise Tom Tancredo.
What’s he done wrong? Here is So Cal he has some good buzz because of his efforts on the border issue, but that’s all we really hear about him. His anti-evolution stance was a big disappointment.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Daffy Says:
> “Give me a creationist libertarian over an atheist socialist > any day.â€
>
> Those aren’t the only 2 choices.
We’ll find out after the primaries. One of the problems with the US system is that it does tend to boil the presidential election down to a choice between 2 candidates – neither of whom are likely to be completely acceptable. Of course, the odds of any proclaimed atheist being one of the 2 choices are vanishingly small, and I doubt many creationists are libertarians, but you’re still going to get stuck with a choice between the creationist party and the socialist party.
(Okay, that’s not fair on socialists, the Democrats are way too right wing to qualify).
May 10th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Phil, thanks for pointing this out and for taking a stand on it. I’m with you on this 100%. There’s no room in our government for officials who deny the validity of proven science. The last thing in the world I want to see is America slipping into a 21st century dark ages.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Seems to me this thing about evolution doesn’t boil down not to whether you believe it or not, but whether you understand it or not. If I’m wrong–and there are people who understand it but still don’t “believe” it–we’re in big trouble.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
[...] a side note, it makes me want to pull my eardrums through my nose when people say they don’t “believe” in human-caused global climate change. You can argue about [...]
January 30th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Oh man,
At some point, I think we need to put in a requirement for all potential presidents of the United States to actually believe that Science exists!
March 4th, 2008 at 9:06 am
[...] dizzying spin that seems to be made of him trying to take both sides of every issue imaginable. His garbage stance on evolution was the first time I heard him brown-nosing the antiscience crowd, which was bad enough. But the [...]
March 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
They don’t have woo-woo in China. They protect themselves against it by the proper use of Feng Shui.
A Fundy Mental Case once asked me, “Do you believe in evolution?” I said, “Yeah, like I believe in oxygen and gravity.” He didn’t know what to say after that. The stammer was priceless. I walked away trying not to ROFL.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:20 am
[...] dizzying spin that seems to be made of him trying to take both sides of every issue imaginable. His garbage stance on evolution was the first time I heard him brown-nosing the antiscience crowd, which was bad enough. But the [...]