Heard on the radio this morning, a commenter responding to a radio talk show host's pointing out to him that Mike Huckabee doesn't accept evolution as valid. This is as close as I can remember what he said, but the gist is correct:
We disagree on that. But not believing in evolution is something I can overlook. It's not that important. It's not as though he'll have stormtroopers knocking down my door because of it.
Maybe not, but if elected Huckabee would have a huge say over federal educational and biological research policy and funding. Being a creationist, as Mike Huckabee is, to me is an indication of a huge lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of science. Worse, though, and more relevant to the Presidency, it indicates an even larger hole in his critical thinking skills--so much so that it's pretty close to an automatic disqualification for the Presidency. Basically, to me belief in creationism of any stripe is an indication that a candidate is too likely for my taste to choose his religion and ideology over science and objective facts whenever the there is a conflict between them. We've had far more than enough of that already; we don't need any more.
But, then, what do I know? I'm just a physician and a scientist.
"Worse, though, and more relevant to the Presidency, it indicates an even larger hole in his critical thinking skills--so much so that it's pretty close to an automatic disqualification for the Presidency."
I agree, but I suspect it's a minority opinion in this country. Not being very good at critical thinking never stopped anybody from being president in the past, so why should we start worrying about it now?
As far as I'm concerned, it indicates that the candidate will allow ideological magical thinking to trump real evidence, and that can have catastrophic consequences. In fact, it has already killed thousands of Americans and Iraqis.
Huckabee's faith in God as Creator does not make him a "Creationist" (in common parlance). I believe God created the universe and that God's universe has steadily "evolved" in ways science has, over time, been able to observe.
If anything, Huckabee's acknowledgement that he doesn't know how long God took to create the universe is more scientifically tenable than someone who purports to know the "Origin of the Species". Origin? What scientific evidence can back that up?
It's not as though he'll have stormtroopers knocking down my door because of it.
Come to think of it, are any of the candidates going to literally have stormtroopers knocking on this guy's door, for any reason? I kind of doubt it. On the other hand, all of the candidates, if elected, would be setting education policy... I guess maybe most people just find education policy one of those "boring" issues.
But, let's for a moment buy this guy's premise and hypothetically suppose that the next president is actually going to be in a position, for one reason or another, to be potentially sending stormtroopers to knock on people's doors. Never mind science for a moment-- if you're going to pick someone for a job with that level of decisionmaking power, then wouldn't your absolute first concern be that the person picked is someone with a clearly demonstrated ability to tell the difference between fantasy and reality?
Pistol pete
Huckabee acknowledges that he is a biblical literalist He accepts without question that the bible is the inerrant word of god. I am not sure what your definition of a creationist is, but he seems to fit the popular defintion.
"Huckabee's faith in God as Creator does not make him a "Creationist" "
Rather, it was when he raised his hand when asked, "Who amongst you does not believe in Evolution?" by Tim Russert (I think?) at a previous debate that signaled that he is a creationist.
We're close to having storm troopers now: blackwater is headed by a christianist and is no different from a government-sponsored and unaccountable militia. Not that anyone cares.
On the point, however: I agree whole-heartedly that denying evolution ought to be a disqualifier for public office, in that it signifies the inability to think critically. We've had more than enough of that. On the same lines: where's the outrage over the response to the question on CNN's youtube debate, wherein the candidates were asked if they considered the bible to be the literal word of god? Not a one of them said what ought to have been said, namely that whereas the man had the right to ask such a question, we live in a country whose constitution forbids a religious test for office: so answering is respectfully, and constitutionally, declined.
Science, I'd say, matters not much -- certainly not enough -- to the people who seem to flood the polling places on election days. The world is hard. Science is hard. Blind faith is easy. QED.
It's not just a lack of critical thinking, it's a lack of education, to be charitable.
@Pistol Pete
Have you read "The Origin of Species"?
Nowhere in Darwin's book does he consider where life came from. In a nutshell the book discusses the idea that small gradual changes between individuals and their offspring over time leads to speciation.
How is saying "I don't know where life came from, therefore magic-man in the sky must have done it" even remotely scientific?
C'mon science-y types. Everyone knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster reached out His Noodly Appendage and created the Earth in six short days. Equal time in the classroom to all "theories", people! Including the Norse belief that the Earth began from a cow licking the armpit of a man, the Greek belief that Mighty Uranus married Gaea - teach 'em all and you might even have enough time left over to get that "science" stuff taught as well.
*sigh* I hope that Huckabee is merely pandering to his audience.
Kevin - I'm not sure what Huckabee means here by being a "Biblical literalist". Clearly, he indicated last night we shouldn't pluck our eyes out, as the Bible mentions. He said that was metaphorical. I think he simply looks for the plain meaning of the text and tries to live it out.
Jesse - You can have doubts about Evolution and still not be a strict "Creationist". There are a growing number of scientists and others who see evidence of intelligent design (rather than random evolution) and they may or may not ascribe to a literal understanding of Genesis.
Tony - I confess to only have read brief sections of "The Origin of the Species". My point here was not to critique Darwin, but to reveal the blind faith necessary in believing macro-evolution. To say that the evolution we observe in such things as bacteria necessarily points back to some cosmic big bang or, as I've seen some "scientists" speculate - intelligent life forms from other planets - takes just more faith than I have.
@Pistol Pete
"To say that the evolution we observe in such things as bacteria necessarily points back to some cosmic big bang...takes just more faith than I have"
That is the argument from personal incredulity. That isn't science. Science requires evidence.
There is a mass of evidence that lots of tiny changes (micro-evolution in your terminology) over a massively long time (eons) can add up to quite major observed changes in the appearance, physiology and genetic record of living creatures (macro-evolution in your terminology). No blind faith is necessary.
I am more interested in finding out how far the Senate will take the serious issue of investigating so called religious organizations and their political contributions to candidates (i.e paula White Corporation, check that, ministries).
So called religious organizations that funnel funding or aide to political candidates should have thier tax exemptions taken away without question.
Hell anybody with enough money can run for President thats been made all to obvious just in the last 8 years....
Carter was a religious man too, but I beleive he had an advanced degree in engineering of some sort and he was smart enough to know where to draw the line between his personal faith and science (maybe not?).
This religious corporate involvment is what is really at the root of many of our problems and Huckabee is just another symptom of Corporate Jesus.
How about Orac for president? Or will voting for a box of blinking lights violate the constitution?
Pistol Pete writes:
Of course not. Plucking out eyes would be barbaric when you can surgically remove them. The god of the Old Testament is a cruel monster, but he has mellowed with age.
No, that's false. There's a slight problem in that no one has been able to clearly state what "evidence of intelligent design" would even look like.
No, it's a (deliberate?) lack of critical thinking. He's got plenty of education, and he's smart and hard-working too. He graduated magna cum laude - in two and half years - from a well-respected, fully accredited university.
The man scares me as much as Bobby Jindal - another creationist who incidentally earned a degree, with honors, in biology and public policy from Brown University.
Either one of these guys must have critical thinking skills to spare, but apparently they use them selectively. As in, when it doesn't give them an unpalatable answer.
I'd vote for Orac. Blinking lights and all.
On another note, it often seems like we could solve every problem known to man with the same solution: "Make people smarter." The problem, of course, is that this is not only impossible, it probably wouldn't actually solve the problem, given that smart people still do stupid things and have remarkable lapses in critical thinking.
Science is the most important weapon we have against ignorance and the best thing we can do is continue to educate people. Part of why I'm so interested in the scienceblogging sphere and in the internet is that flooding the world with information and critical thought is the only way we're ever going to be able to hold back the tides of stupidity. We can't make people do anything, only show them the light switch and hope they'll turn it on instead of sitting in the dark.
Most of the smart people I know find that truth is extremely valuable. What's the best way to communicate the value of truth to others?
"Being a creationist, as Mike Huckabee is, to me is an indication of a huge lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of science."
Your response to Huckabee's belief is an indication of extreme intolerance for those who have experienced and have evidence daily of God's presence in their lives.
Basically, what you are saying...is anyone not conforming to the edicts of accepted "science" which were adopted by a consensus of flawed individuals (much like the those who claimed (AIDS would be an uncontrollable pandemic and a few years ago preached a coming ice-age)do not deserve to have any say in public affairs.
Dude....you're a dumb-ass!
Welcome to politics. Critical thinking in politicians... ha!
Give me a break. It's not Huckabee's belief that provoked my reaction. It's his ignorantly rejecting one of the most well-established and well-supported scientific theories there is, a theory that underlies all of biology on the basis of his religion, on the basis of that belief. That's an entirely different thing. I'm not at all intolerant of religion. Huckabee's free to believe that the earth is flat, if that's what he thinks God tells him. However, I do not want someone who lets his religion override empiric observation and science to the point that he rejects the theory that underpins all biology to be my President. I make no apology for that.
And, besides, what does rejecting evolution, as Huckabee did, have to do with being a Christian? Nothing.
None of the current crop of poltical doublespeakers interests me in the slightest. Not even the so-called straight-talking ones. Mainly because the talk they talk is not just "not what I want to hear" but it's all-too-carefully-crafted to have little real meaning to anyone with the least bit of critical thinking skills.
"It's his ignorantly rejecting one of the most well-established and well-supported scientific theories there is, a theory that underlies all of biology on the basis of his religion..."
"well-established and well-supported scientific THEORIES"
Huckabee doesn't reject micro-evolution.
He rejects macro-evolution.
Tell me...what does the belief in macro-evolution have to do with politics...or any damned thing for that matter?
It benefits us NOT ONE IOTA!
Variation within species is documented...NOT the mutation from one form of life to another!
You CANNOT rely on the fossil-record and choose however much time your theory might need to be supported.
You live in a dream-world. And you worship at the feet of men. Men, in my opinion, with a godless agenda!
You say you have nothing against religion. Right...I'll bet there is not a soul who reads you who believes that.
Remember what you said:
"Basically, to me belief in creationism of any stripe is an indication that a candidate is too likely for my taste to choose his religion and ideology over science and objective facts whenever the there is a conflict between them."
So...you have nothing against religion...except science.
LOL!
Pawn!
Yawn. A creationist parroting the same tired creationist lies about macroevolution not having been observed, gaps about the fossil record, etc. Really, I'm laughing at you. You can't even come up with creationist "criticisms" of evolution that haven't been refuted ad nauseum.
And why should I trust a candidate who places religion/ideology over facts and science, as Huckabee obviously does?
Actually, Al-Ozarka, you're wrong.
On many counts.
For starters:
You want to argue what scientific facts have to do with politics? Hmm. Let's see - there couldn't be any scientific issues in the political realm, now could there... how about global warming, stem cell research, the space program? What about the governmental funding of things like the CDC, NIH, NSF? Seems to me that the person who's leading the governmental charge on this ought to be someone who understands science, not someone who sees actual facts and data and chooses to ignore it by sticking his fingers in his ears and singing Amazing Grace. And yes, macroevolution IS one of those facts. Ignoring it is sheer folly. Want evidence for evolution? It's incredibly easy to find. Start with http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ and keep going.
Second, I'm a fairly frequent reader here. And I DO believe Orac has nothing against religion. So your bet is wrong.
@Al-Ozarka
Quit parading your lack of education for all to see.
You parrot lines you've heard from manipulative fools with hidden agendas, lacking any actual knowledge of that about which you speak.
Huckabee's rejection of evolution (I don't think that you properly understand the difference between micro and macro evolution) is a rejection of the enlightenment over superstition.
That's why he is unfit to govern in the modern age.
Posted by: Schwartz "Welcome to politics. Critical thinking in politicians... ha!"
I think my irony meter just broke!
Pardon me.
I stand corrected.
Former President Carter had an undergraduate degree in Physics from the US Naval academy. He did not have an advanced degree.
Either way, Carter seemed to be a devote christian yet did not seem to let scientific facts interfere with his personal faith.
Adherents of the Abrahamic religion (I've stopped trying to divide it into three sects) seem to like parables: Here goes:
There was a fabulously wealthy prince, whose family had spent centuries building up a collection of the finest works ever produced by man. He decided to invite everyone in the region to a banquet to celebrate its final completion. The guests marvelled at the immensity of the baroque palace housing the collection, gasped at the famous, inspiring works of art.
All except two groups. One, wearing suits, seemed to be trying to sneak the smaller works into their pockets. The other, mostly wearing long beards, were doing their best to vandalise them. He approached the leaders of these groups. "You can't fool me" said the first. "The gardener told me all about it. You built this all out of wood and plaster two weeks ago. The building is fake, just these two rooms here, the rest is done with mirrors. The paintings are just prints." "Lying dog!" growled the other. "That's not the gardener - he's an impostor. I know the gardener, and he told me you built this place last month out of concrete. The paintings were done by misguided students and are an affront to nature."
What should the prince do with such ungrateful and rude guests?
Dear Al-Ozarka:
Please do not insult the fine people of the Ozarks by displaying your stupidity so openly.
Thank you
TheProbe
"the enlightenment"
LOL!
That's funny raht thar!
Gulliblility is not enlightenment, Dude!
Again...sheesh!
Elitist bastards...the world could do without 'em!
If any of my readers want to see an example of just how ignorant "Al-Ozarka" is about evolution, take a gander at this post by him.
The stupid, it really does burn. It's hard not to laugh at him.
...would be quite spectacularly stupid, given that evolutionary biology is not cosmological physics.
Only if you try.
Laugh...it doesn't change the fact that you folks here are displaying your elitism and complete intolerance of those who do not adhere to the faith by which you have chosen to adhere.
Like it or not...you folks worship a creation born of hateful, corrupt humanity...and it shows in your conversation.
I have faith in a perfect, omniscient God...and am humiliated by it.
Learn a lesson, for GOODNESS' sake!
Maybe the elitist hatred for those with whom you disagree will subside a bit and you can live rewarding lives that mean something.
Close but not quite. Try: You have faith in a perfect, omniscient God and are humiliating yourself because of it.
There, that's better.
"You can have doubts about Evolution and still not be a strict "Creationist". There are a growing number of scientists and others who see evidence of intelligent design (rather than random evolution) and they may or may not ascribe to a literal understanding of Genesis."
Patently false.
Belief in intelligent design requires belief in a creator. If God is not the creator then who/what is? Ergo, ID is nothing more than creationism with an ad agency, albeit a very bad one.
...as Al's biology teachers said in vain.
From Al-Ozarka:
"The Bible's account holds true...even to modern science. Heck...even to modern "science"!
But the myth of evolution remains that...a myth."
This is far beyond asking people to get comfortable with asking, "Would you like fries with that?" when discussing the role of education in shaping lives.
I can't think of a better PSA to finish high school. Can anyone else?
Oh and little edit to my last post to "pistol Pete": I should have substituted 'designer' for 'creator' to keep with the dishonest semantics of ID proponents. Sorry for being honest about what you folks are trying to do.
Variation within species is documented...NOT the mutation from one form of life to another!
Then please explain the existence of Transitional Species:
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-are-transitional-species…
Elitist bastards...the world could do without 'em!
Yes, because you're so much different with your xtian views. Clearly you don't think you're better than people who aren't creationists and don't see 'proof of God daily'. If you want honest discussion you might want to consider changing your tone.... unless you're just being reflective of your faith in showing your intolerance and immaturity?
"Clearly you don't think you're better than people who aren't creationists and don't see 'proof of God daily'."
Clearly, as you noted, I don't.
My position is that you have every right to place your faith in anything of your choosing.
Unlike you folks, I happen to think every American has a right to have input into government regardless of his/her focus of faith.
It's up to the people to decide if that input is worthy. Which is what pisses you folks off so much...the American people don't agree with your intolerance...and continue to place faith in the Creator high on their list of priorities when making laws.
So...who were you saying displays intolerance, Jesse? Me, who says you have a right...even a legitimate reason to believe the way you do.
Or you folks here, who say I have no right...or even a legitimate reason to believe the way I do.
Look what I just found!
Kinda goes along with the schoolin' I've been giving you guys on tolerance, don't it?
As a Christian with a combined honours degree in biology and geology, I've never understood why Christian (and other) fundamentalist creationists want to limit God so much. Why do they apparently want to reduce him to nothing more than a magician, a sleight-of-hand artist who creates a universe in 6 days by just snapping his fingers? A universe, moreover, which is filled with evidence to the contrary.
Psalm 19 vs 1-2: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
For me it's infinitely more amazing to believe that 20 billion years ago (give or take a few millenia), God designed an incredibly complicated and detailed universe, with meticulous and comprehensive laws - many of which we don't know or understand very imperfectly - to control its development, and it's been continuing and expanding and progressing and evolving all of that time.
Who could not be moved by the Hubble telescope pictures of those vast clouds of gas so many light years away from which stars are being born? Who could fail to marvel at the mysteries of gravity and magnetism, or the myriad strange particles that physicists keep predicting and discovering? How could anyone not be amazed by the breadth and diversity and complexity of all life on Earth? What about the beauty and majesty of the mountains, and the sheer time needed to lay down the rocks, and the unimaginable forces needed to bend and twist them and build them up?
Science studies geology, palaeontology, biology, chemistry, cosmology, astronomy, physics, mathematics, and many many more areas, and we gain knowledge every day about the world. (Most of which brings up even more questions than before - which is half the fun, and ensures the paychecks keep coming.) These things are observable, measurable, rationally understandable even if we don't yet have all the answers, and God created the brains we use to study them too, whether you want to believe that or not ;)
God does not lie.
For me that's the most important thing. God is truth. Creationists make him out to be a charlatan, an illusionist who presents us with evidence which is meaningless. The Bible - or any other religious text - is not there as a scientific textbook. It tells us one thing: God created the heavens and the earth. The rest is ours to find out. Nothing we discover through science can or will dismiss or diminish God in any way; rather, it should cause us to worship the infinite power displayed.
(Apologies; this turned out to be a longer post than I intended, but it's something I feel strongly about.)
This is my most entertaining post on evolution.
Enjoy!
"So...who were you saying displays intolerance"
YOU.
Without a single shred of evidence you have done nothing but mock evolution and those whose opinions are counter to yours. You incorrectly assume that anyone who believes in evolution has to be an atheist to doubt the bible and God. I can't think of anything less tolerant than to make gross mischaracterizations and trot out lies about things you know nothing about. You have offered not a shred of scientific evidence and every ridiculous canard you have trotted out have been so heavily refuted, as Orac says, it is difficult not to laugh at you.
Your 'most entertaining post on evolution'? More like, 'More evidence that I have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of biology and evolution'.
You're nothing more than another cretin trying to play the victim card. People like you are truly tragic.
Wow. It's getting to the point where I'm having a hard time discerning parody from actual idiocy.
Look what I just found!
You found... Tony Blair?
...Congratulations?
Tell me if I'm missing something, but does that retard Al-Ozarka actually believe that "macroevolution" is the process of one individual organism turning into another?
Are there others who believe this too?
WTF?
Tell me if I'm missing something, but does that retard Al-Ozarka actually believe that "macroevolution" is the process of one individual organism turning into another?
Are there others who believe this too?
WTF?
Hey there, Mr. Thin Skin, but I didn't notice anyone claiming you have no right to believe the way you do. Everyone has the right to be wrong, even willfully so. Lesson of the day for you: criticism of your beliefs is not persecution.
Similarly, I'm sure there's a reason you believe the way you do. But that reason is not based in evidence or an understanding of evolution, because you lack both.
So Al-Ozarka reminds me of a question I've had recently. I usually just see this with Ron Paul fanboys, but it seems like any criticism of a candidate anywhere brings out a contingent of defensive supporters (usually the wacky ones).
Now I'd be willing to bet our friend here (and others like him) isn't a regular Scienceblogs follower, so does that mean these folks are out trolling the internet for negative commentary?
Y'know, for someone who claims to worship only God, your blog seems to be awfully darned close to worshiping Huckabee. And since all humans are sinful creatures, wouldn't he, too, be born of hateful, corrupt humanity?
Tony, he's not the only one by far. It's one of the most common misconceptions I've encountered as a teacher. I think they're imagining dogs turning into bats before our eyes or some such crap.
Oh, please. Spare me the straw men arguments. I never said that Huckabee didn't have the right to his views or that he didn't have the right to run for public office. He does. What I said is that his acceptance of creationism is evidence that for him religion trumps the real world, which to me is a disqualification for the Presidency. He has every right to run, but I would never vote for him, and many who see creationism the same way would never vote for him either.
As for you, no one--and I mean no one--ever said that you don't have the right to believe the way you do. We think you're an idiot because your posts reveal that you clearly do not understand even the rudiments of what evolution is and are amused by your proud display of your ignorance, but we never said you don't have a right to speak your piece.
And, we, of course, have every right to mock you for the fool you clearly are, at least when it comes to evolution.
Davis, I'm sure Orac could answer that question by searching the IP address associated with the comment in his Sitemeter referral logs. But there are other explanations than trolling for negatives about candidates: Pharyngula has a lot of anti-evolution readers, avid for arguments, so it's not fair to say that people of Mr. Ozarka's bent aren't reading here; maybe Mr. Ozarka was looking explicitly for perspectives on Mr. Huckabee's stance on evolution, rather than any negative press; or maybe he came over for the Slagel fight and decided this bothered him more.
What bothered me...and still does...is the intolerance you display towards those who are skeptical of that in which you have placed your faith,
I've never read this blog before today. I responded to the un-American attitude displayed by the post which would effectively eliminate any consideration of faith in a Creator to be considered when making public policy...while not considering that the result would be public policy based on the faith-based belief in evolution.
My argument is sound. Yours is not.
Orac said:
"...that for him religion trumps the real world, which to me is a disqualification for the Presidency."
And that, my friend, is elitism at its finest.
What, in effect, you are saying is...you have it ALL figured out and anyone who doesn't agree with your view of origins is too stupid to make public policy.
That is elitism...pure, simple, undeniable.
And that is the point I made in my original post and all others that followed. I have not ridiculed your belief system...only stated that it is indeed a belief system.
You balk at that and one has to wonder why such brilliant folks like you could not recognize the fact that you have placed your faith in man's consensus.
Newsflash! Man's consensus is quite often...probably most of the time...WRONG!
As I said before, Einsteins...learn a lesson for GOODNESS' sake!
Ozark, you are one of the stupidest fucking idiots I have ever run across online.
You know nothing about what you speak, and you're laughably proud of it.
Why are morons like you even posting here? Don't you get tired of being pwned repeatedly?
Luzid - Ozark and his ilk should wear T shirts proclaiming "Ignorant and Proud of It" - maybe it should become the new motto of the USA.
I especially had to laugh at the irony of the comment about Man's concensus being wrong most of the time, since every time religion and science have been in conflict religion has turned out to be wrong (Copernicus/Galileo) etc.
I also find creationists calling evilotionists arrogant completely ironic - what could be be more anthropocentrically arrogant than the belief that the whole whacking great univers was created for our species.