Pharyngula

A defining issue

James Trumm has a single issue, one that trumps all the others in the election booth, and I have to agree with him. It’s a kind of signal flare that says the person advocating it is a total loon and not to be trusted on anything.

That issue is creationism.

I will never vote for anyone who favors creationism, no matter how commendable their position on other matters. Trumm makes a good case:

Evolution is the canary in the coal mine of enlightenment, of science, of reality itself. When it finds it hard to breathe, that is a clear sign that the atmosphere has become toxic. Again, Chris Hedges, from his new book, American Fascists:

The goal of creationism is not to offer an alternative. Its goal is the destruction of the core values of the open society–the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common sense tell you something is wrong, to be self-critical, to challenge authority, to advocate for change and to accept that there are other views, different ways of being, that are morally and socially acceptable.

This, then, is my single issue, and why Mike Huckabee will only get scorn from me.

Don’t get me wrong—no one is going to get my vote simply because they accept evolution—but someone who does not is suffering from the rot of ignorance, and they won’t be getting my support.

Comments

  1. #1 Ichthyic
    January 31, 2007

    ). Front loading and theistic evolution don’t really bother me so much, though. It’s belief in special creation that really requires ignoring all evidence.

    uh, hate to burst your bubble, but there’s no evidentiary support for front-loading, either; lots of evidence to reject it as a concept, in fact. Moreover, proponents of front loading ignore just as much contrary evidence as YEC’s do.

    meh, what can ya do.

    bottom line here, though, is the willful ignorance of evidence. THAT’S the thing that needs to be rejected in our politicians.

    there really is no excuse. If a politician is ignorant on an issue, they have STAFFERS to help do research for them. Or, they can rely on experts just like the rest of us do.

    it’s when people like Shrub rely on the “expert” opinion of folks like Ted Haggard that we should immediately get that little bell going off in our heads saying:

    impeach.

  2. #2 David Marjanovi?
    February 1, 2007

    Self-identified “conservatives” are about half as likely to accept the statement “Human beings evolved from earlier species of animals” as liberals are.

    Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

  3. #3 David Marjanovi?
    February 1, 2007

    Self-identified “conservatives” are about half as likely to accept the statement “Human beings evolved from earlier species of animals” as liberals are.

    Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

  4. #4 Ichthyic
    February 1, 2007

    In that case, you’ve effectively eliminated every political candidate from consideration.

    how do you figure?

    my guess would be that you equate front-loading with theistic evolution.

    if so, you are incorrect. the two are not the same thing necessarily.

    most theistic evolutionists are “ball rollers”; that is they think that some deity or ruther simply initiated the process, and the rest took care of itself.

    that’s not front loading.

    a theistic evolutionist has boiled down the the incongruity between evidence and faith to the most basic, non-eliminable concept – sometime, somewhere, some deity decided to set up laws that allowed evolution to take place. Impossible to falsify, so it suits the position well enough. from a political standpoint, it makes for good appeasement.

    front-loading, OTOH, is entirely falsifiable and has already been so. Any politician who would maintain this stance automatically sets themselves against the evidence.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.