O’DONNELL: You know what, evolution is a myth. And even Darwin himself –

MAHER: Evolution is a myth? Have you ever looked at a monkey?

O’DONNELL: Well then, why they — why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?

And there’s her assertion that there’s “just as much, if not more, evidence supporting” six-day creationism as there is for evolution. And yes, a lot of people share her ignorance. More accurate answers to the poll you site might have been “No, I don’t believe in evolution, but I really don’t know much about it” (and “Yes, I do believe in evolution, but I really don’t know much about it”). But O’Donnell is not an anonymous survey respondent. She says her kooky things in public. She repeats them. And refuses to educate herself. And now she wants to be one of 100 U.S. Senators. So yes, her ideas ideas and willful ignorance deserve mockery in, precisely, a political context.

I acknowledge that what you seem to be getting at, Razib, is not whether her views deserve ridicule but whether her ignorance of science and her creationist views are a liability for her in the November election, and whether “mockery” on this issue by the opposing side in that election is a winning strategy. Liability? Hard to say. Mockery? No, probably not. She’s only running for the Senate, not a local school board. But should it really, as one commenter puts it, “not matter what a politician thinks about most scientific issues”? Or, as I’d put it, doesn’t it matter a great deal when a political candidate like O’Donnell is so woefully and willfully and publicly ignorant about basic science facts? That’s not a candidate I’d trust to make good evidence-based decisions on any issue, wherever the evidence doesn’t fit her own ignorant preconceived notions.

And if I lived in Delaware I’d vote for her. At the end of the day I care how she would vote (particularly about the first 5 or so votes when Congress reconvenes).

O’Donnell seems a kooky to me. Whether I’d vote for her if able would depend on who she was running against. Against a bearded Marxist? O’Donnell in a minute. A kook is less dangerous. If she turns out pure nut then she’ll be sidetracked and ignored. Kooks are not dangerous in Congress unless there are a lot of them all pointing the same direction.

People who teach, “Cretain science,” to children are committing child abuse.

People who believe in, “Cretain science,” are fanantic cultist who are in
need of deprogramming and rational emotive therapy.

I am a creationist, but don’t care two figs what politicians think about the issue, and I oppose what’s going on with education in Texas.

I’m also believe an unborn child is a person with the same right to life as the rest of us – but I’d rather have a pro-choice limited government candidate than a pro-life big-government candidate.

It should not matter what a politician thinks about most scientific issues because they aren’t supposed to have the power to do anything that matters about it. They’re supposed to protect people from harm by others & keep up the roads, and not all that much else.

The entire acrimony over creation & evolution would disappear if we’d get our education system fixed – that is: give parents the choice on where & how to educate their kids. If you want them taught evolution & nothing religious at school – fine – do it. If you want them taught only creationism – fine – do it. If like me you want them taught both – fine do that.

But, I guess she isn’t any more of a kook than the people who end up voting for her.

I mean, sh*t, most people were geocentrists in the Middle Ages.