Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, a diehard conservative, is being bruited about as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016. Given that, it’s appropriate for us to examine his views about evolution, which are, after all, a touchstone of how far a man’s religious belief—or pandering to his constituency—blinds him to obvious scientific truth.
Of course Walker, as we see in the video below, flatly refuses to answer the question of whether he “believes in” (I prefer “accepts the scientific truth of”) evolution. We’re left wondering whether he either doesn’t accept evolution, or he does but won’t admit it for fear of driving away conservative voters. Either way it’s an invidious tactic. I’d send all these people a copy of Why Evolution is True, but you know that wouldn’t accomplish anything. After all, only 19% of Americans accept a naturalistic view of evolution, and why would you want to alienate the rest?
PuffHo also gives a summary:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Wednesday dodged a question about whether he believes in evolution.
Speaking at the Chatham House foreign policy think tank London, Walker was asked: “Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?”
“For me, I am going to punt on that one as well,” he said. “That’s a question politicians shouldn’t be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I’m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate about evolution.”
Walker was officially in the United Kingdom to promote trade and investment. He added when pressed: “I love the evolution of trade in Wisconsin.”
Those of you who defend Republicans as “not all being idiots,” well, read this piece by Luke Brinker in Salon, laying out where all the potential G.O.P. candidates for president stand on evolution. Here’s Brinker’s summary of their stands.
The Evolutionists
- Nobody. [JAC: Depressing, isn’t it?]
The Asterisk
- Jeb Bush: Asked in 2005 whether he accepted evolution, Bush affirmed that he did — but that it shouldn’t be taught in schools. “Yeah, but I don’t think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you,” Bush said. “And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.” Later that year, he argued that students should be presented with “varying viewpoints.” [JAC: I hope they ask him this in the Presidential debates, and then hit him hard about teaching creationism as science.]
They Aren’t Scientists
- Chris Christie: Does Christie affirm evolutionary science? “That’s none of your business,” he replied with characteristic brusqueness in 2011. “Evolution is required teaching,” he added. “If there’s a certain school district that also wants to teach creationism, that’s not something we should decide in Trenton.” [JAC: Teaching creationism also happens to be against the law.]
- Ted Cruz: While his kooky father would like you to know that evolution is a Communist lie, the Texas senator himself “won’t discuss evolution directly,” the New Yorker reported.
- Bobby Jindal: The Brown University biology major, Rhodes scholar, and scorner of “the stupid party” feigns ignorance on the subject, emphasizing last year that he’s not an “evolutionary biologist” and contending that local schools should decide what they teach. [JAC: I wrote a popular book on the topic that is accessible and comprehensible to every semi-educated or educated person, including biology major Jindal. He’s simply a coward who won’t even look at the evidence.]
- John Kasich: During his 2010 run for Ohio governor, Kasich seemed to place evolution and creationism on a par with one another, saying only that both evolution and “creation science” should be taught in classrooms.
- Rand Paul: During his 2010 Senate campaign, Paul courted young earth creationists and said he would “pass” on the question of how old the earth is.
- Marco Rubio: Asked the earth’s age in 2012, Rubio replied, “I’m not a scientist, man.” He added, “At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.” After his remarks on the earth’s age were widely derided, Rubio acknowledged that it’s 4.5 billion years old, but maintained that that wasn’t inconsistent with creationism.
- Scott Walker: He’s going to punt on this one.
The Hell No Caucus
- Ben Carson: He may be an acclaimed neurosurgeon, but Carson casts his lot with the creationists. “Evolution and creationism both require faith. It’s just a matter of where you choose to place that faith,” he declared in 2012, proceeding to imply that evolutionists lacked an ethical framework. [JAC: He’s a Seventh-day Adventist, but he just looks like an idiot when he says that accepting evolution requires as much faith as his religion.]
- Mike Huckabee: During a 2007 GOP presidential debate, the Southern Baptist preacher and former Arkansas governor indicated that he doesn’t accept evolution. “But you know, if anybody wants to believe they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it,” he said. [JAC: Huckabee, like all of us, are of course direct descendants of primates. Even if he doesn’t accept evolution, does he deny that his own parents are primates?]
- Rick Perry: Calling evolution just a “theory that’s out there,” Perry proclaimed in 2011 that “God is how we got here.” Creationism and evolution should both be presented in public schools, he added. [JAC: He’s advocating that schools violate the law—a great stand for a Presidential candidate!]
- Rick Santorum: Denouncing the idea that evolution is “above reproach,” Santorum said in 2008, “I obviously don’t feel that way. I think there are a lot of problems with the theory of evolution, and do believe that it is used to promote to a worldview that is anti-theist, that is atheist.”
I would absolutely love to debate all of these candidates at once on the truth of evolution and the history of teaching creationism in U.S. schools. Twelve against one—bring ’em on! They got nothing!
h/t: Barry, jsp
Such willful ignorance and/or pandering is depressing. How “exceptional” is a country that can only, so far, come up with candidates of such dismal qualities? Pathetic.
California’s Pete Stark was a distinct – and distinguished! – Republican exception:
http://americanhumanist.org/news/details/2011-02-humanists-proudly-endorse-rep-pete-starks-darwin-day
I’m with you in the willful ignorance and pandering – somehow I find it more objectionable that there are absolutely politicians on both sides of the aisle who know better and spout these damaging lies. I’m not sure why it matters to me though: the fact that someone is sincerely spouting lies doesn’t make them any less damaging. There is not excuse for being ignorant about science, not in this day and age when science is only becoming more and more important to the future of the nation and really the entire planet.
It matters in the context of ethics and is important in assessing the threat. That a person willingly just straight up lies, like so many of these politicians do about so many things, is an indicator of what you can expect from them in the future in any context. The blatant liar is like dealing with a carny. The person who is merely willfully ignorant about evolution may otherwise be fairly reasonable and ethical.
Yes I guess that’s why the straight-up mendacity bothers me more.
Except that they want to spread ignorance and try their best to make teaching religion as history and science mandatory in public schools, which is neither reasonable nor ethical.
Let’s read that again.
1) Did you not notice how the word “may” looked different than all the other words? Since it does take some effort to do that, do you think maybe it was done with the intent to convey additional meaning to the word?
2) So now everyone (see what I did there?) who is willfully ignorant about evolution is trying their best to make teaching religion as history and science mandatory in public schools? I’ll just leave that as no, that is not accurate, because either that was just a throw away line felt good in the moment but on further reflection you realize is inaccurate, or you really do think that in which case I wouldn’t care to try to change your mind.
3) It sure seems to me that any attitudes or actions that result from a person’s willful ignorance of evolution sort of, you know, don’t qualify as otherwise. They are not all Don McLeroy(s) or Mike Huckabee(s). On the other end of the spectrum are the Ken Miller(s), and then there is the entire spectrum in between.
Pete Stark was a Democrat
Ha ha you’re right! Well, there you go! A slightly less-rare bird then. Gosh I even saw the D after his name when I googled his Darwin bill. Wow.
“Speaking at the Chatham House foreign policy think tank London…” Any forum calling itself a “think tank” should consider a temporary name change when an American GOP candidate stops by for a visit.
“Think tranq.”
I’m thinking “The Think that Tanked”.
“I would absolutely love to debate all of these candidates at once on the truth of evolution and the history of teaching creationism in U.S. schools. Twelve against one—bring ‘em on!”
Sadly, to Republican primary voters, you’d lose in a landslide.
Does PCC want to be a “write in”? Then we can have the debate at the hustings. 😄
/@
Jerry, I liked the way you ended the post. Good use of a Bushism. Only difference is you have all of the facts on your side. “…bring ‘em on!”
Soooo very many … … “ … … against one—bring ‘em on! They got nothing!”
I love it !
BEEN there so damned many times over elebenty gazillion matters including this one: evolution.
They do GOT NOTHING !
Blue
It’s pathetic, I agree. But what can they do? The approval of the (ignorant) base is so crucial for their chances. The only safe strategy is to duck the question. Of course Huckabee, Santorum, and the like can proudly spout their hostility to science, but those who are in reality more scientifically literate simply can’t let on.
Yeah, but too bad they don’t realize or care that this is lying by omission, when they duck a very important question. Which is worse than what Brian Williams did, IMO.
Don’t understand how you say….What can they do? They could put having a brain and maybe common sense over being an idiot.
I’m not sure it’s the only thing they can do either. How certain are the Republicans that their voters would desert them if they just said ‘I agree with the Pope on evolution’? They’d surely gain a few people who lean towards the centre.
Still, the more entrenched they become the less likely there’s another Republican government in the near future. On that basis I’m hoping the next time religion’s brought up the candidates go properly old testament with their replies – stoning for adulterers and cheeky children, apocalyptic visions of Russell Brand and Hillary Clinton shagging on the white house roof whilst Michael Moore and Jon Stewart kick the resurrected Jesus repeatedly up the arse. They should really go for it.
I don’t share your optimism. I’ve seen my state be taken over by Scott Walker and his ilk. The Republicans now control both houses of Congress.
The ability of the American voter to elect idiots is not to be underestimated.
Well that’s worrying. My hope is that the more extreme they get, the less likely the main bulk of voters are to vote for them. Unfortunately, as you say, the risk is that American voters actually agree with them and you guys end up with a complete lunatic at the helm.
It sounds as if you might be from England(or the UK. I’m embarrassed to admit that I no longer know how to refer to people who live on that island just west of the English Channel. But I digress.)
My point is that you sound like someone who lives in a parliamentary democracy where political extremism has electoral risks. Sad to say, the US system punishes only extremely extreme extremism. Lots of Republicans would vote for Hitler if he said he was against abortion. And I mean after everyone knew about concentration camps, not just the early 1930s Hitler.
(Sorry about the Godwin.)
Either way, they should show more respect for the voters, and clearly state their position. They should not treat the question as irrelevant!
They could lead instead of follow. Isn’t that what we should expect out of a presidential candidate? No, I don’t want presidential candidates to stop listening to the people altogether. But it would be nice if one or more had spine enough to lead their followers to a better policy position through explanation and argument, rather than simply kowtowing to every public opinion no matter how stupid.
Failing that more ideological, head in the clouds idea, here’s a more realpolitic answer to “what can they do.” They could realize that they are in a prisoner’s dilemma situation, and collectively agree on getting out of it by enforcing cooperation. Where enforcing = GOP funds, public support after the primary, etc. and cooperation = supporting sound science. The GOP primary system can probably handle it if Huckabee, Santorum, and Carson “defect.” They’re still going to get their butts kicked anyway. Its only within the more mainstream candidate group that a defection is a major threat to the others.
Do you think the Republicans as a whole think evolution-denial is hurting them? They could, as you say, agree to a party line but that’s assuming the party as a whole believes that line is effective…I don’t know enough, so I don’t know if there are voices in the party calling for a different approach on this issue.
Well going by empiricism, I’m going to have to say no (they don’t think its hurting them). If they did think this, then the RNC would pressure candidates on the issue the way they are probably going to pressure candidates to stop being anti-SSM.
However, the proportion of the public answering “god had no part in evolution” to gallup’s standard question is on a clear statistical rise. Its unclear whether the “losers” are YECism, theistic evolutionism, or both. Regardless, I have to think that if the trend continues, pretty soon the national GOP strategists are going to want anti-evolutionism to disappear from the platform. Like with SSM, you don’t want candidates in the primary saying things that will kill their chances in the general. And the more popular evolution gets, the more of a chance-killer anti-evolutionism becomes.
Perhaps but I suspect they’d get votes from the atheists and secularists out there that have been driving away from the GOP.
Maybe. If they support the GOP’s stance on taxation, business regulations, and social safety nets, they’re probably perfectly happy to overlook things like views on creationism.
I use the phrase “accept as true” in place of “believe” when it involves matters of fact rather than matters of opinion. I don’t believe in evolution, I accept evolution as true (because of the following evidence…).
++
YES!
Yes, we ought to play the same strategy as those theists who talk about “recognizing,” “acknowledging,” or “accepting” the existence of God, thus trying to duck an “entanglement with religion” (“God isn’t religion!”)
Because in our case, we actually have the ground to stand on.
I believe that believers have ruined the word “believe.”
Unbelievable!
/@
Inconceivable!
Only if you use the rhythm method.
Oh. This is probably the wrong thread.
/@
Not for a Sicilian.
A person can no longer make a statement that he believes in a hypothesis because people assume that it is not based on evidence but rather on the supposed virtue of blind faith and willful ignorance. We are unfortunately now saddled with having to take what was a perfectly acceptable word and avoid it at all cost.
Won’t be the last time.
I always avoid the use of the word “believe” in relation to evolution too, especially in social media.
Even more dangerous than their denial of science in relation to evolution though is their denial in relation to climate change. When the government of the most powerful country in the world is denying it, it bodes ill for us all.
I once got into an argument on Twi**er with Labi Siffre (!) because I wouldn’t say that I “believed” in gravity. He argued that we nones should claim it is our own, and not let religionists set the agenda.
/@
I usually say this as well but after reading this post, I like Jerry’s “accept the scientific truth of evolution” because the person has to go against the truth to say he/she doesn’t accept evolution.
I prefer “true” to “truth” for the same reason I prefer “evidence” to “proof”. Truth, like proof, makes it sound final, beyond question, and written in stone. While evolution is true (!), it is still evolving (understanding how much evolutionary change is due to genetic drift rather than adaptation, for example).
It’s useful to avoid the word “truth” lest religious types equivocate with it, conflating religious “truths” (feelings, bald assertions) with verifiable facts.
🍌
🍌
That’s our boy, Scooter! College dropout and scourge of education!
Don’t forget a dropout because of cheating. In one respect I would look forward to his running and having these facts exposed. Then again I think about our electorate’s discerning choice of G. w. Bush for the higest office.
It was exposed a long time ago. Republican voters, and a lot of independents, don’t care.
I see he dropped out of college.
What was the “cheating” that made him dropout?
Could you point to a reliable source such as the nytimes, latimes, WSJ, ..
Disclosure:I am not a fan of Walker. I have phone banked against him from California.
I want to know if I say something, I can back it up.
“He’s a Seventh-day Adventist, but he just looks like an idiot when he says that accepting evolution requires as much faith as his religion.”
I thought much of the modern (19th c.-now) thought emphasizing creationism started with the 7th day adventists.
I suppose we can try to look at this positively and note that hey, they’re not ALL in the Hell NO Caucus. My goodness, see how many Republicans think they have to hedge and haw and not piss off the reason-based community, which must therefore in their minds transcend the lunatic liberal fringe and be a force to be reckoned with.
Little victories. *sigh*
The glass is neither half empty nor half full: it’s too damn small.
I was actually oddly cheered by the “punt” category as well. When I started reading I expected more overt denial. Either they think people who know better matter or they themselves know better and just can’t bring themselves to lie in the most bald faced way. Either of those is a higher bar than I have come to expect.
Any journalist who happens to get a question to any one running for president, democrat or republican should ask the question – do you accept evolution and know that it should be taught in every school.
If they cannot do this, then we know what kind of two bit journalist they are. In fact, they might preface this question with — I don’t give a damn what your opinion is on g*d or abortion or any of that stuff, but……
Your article above is scary. The Republican Party is truly the party of ignorance. Our team can say even though “I’m not a hairy primate we can see from the evidence that we descended from primates in that primates are our cousins”
Since when does” not being a scientist” mean you can’t know anything or having “not being a scientist “excuse you from doing anything??? I’m pretty good at simple math problems but I’m not a mathematician.
I would like to see the debate discussed at the end of the article and why Evolution is true
Maybe set up a kickstarter campaign
To raise money for the “12 against one “evolution debate. while I am “not a banker ” I would pay money to see that.
Well, if they’re asked questions on the economy or foreign policy, do they ever say, “I’m not an economist/diplomat”?
/@
The economy, like religion, and unlike evolution, is a territory where it is all opinion. They can give seemingly definitive answers using smoke and mirror verbage and get away with it.
“Well, I’m not a thinking person, but…”.
I would like to see them hammered on this lame “not a scientist stance”. Evolution is an OK topic, but for the purposes of an election climate change would be a better one for reporters to press on because it actually relates to the office more directly:
“I’m not a scientist.”
“Well, when you are President you will have to make decisions about what to do about the climate, or whether to do anything at all. How will you make those decisions?”
“I’ll seek the input of scientists.”
“Which ones? Will you ask the vast majority who accept climate change, or will you ask the tiny fringe who reject it? How will you decide? What’s keeping you from asking them now? Who is your science advisor? What does she say?”
This seems like easy journalism for anyone who has one of these candidates in an interview, yet I can’t recall seeing anyone ever pressed quite like this. Usually it’s either a liberal interviewer just insisting that climate change is real while the candidate ducks the question or a conservative interviewer soft balling it. I don’t recall seeing anyone actually press them relentlessly on the question of how they would decide science questions and why they can’t do it now.
Let’s hope a few journalists who will get the chance read what you just wrote.
They’re not gynaecologists but they proclaim about reproduction, contraception and abortion. (Except for Ron Paul, who would want to be sure his granddaughter wasn’t lying about being raped before he gave her the morning-after pill.)
They’re not economists, but they know exactly how to fix the economy (usually by trickle-down economics, long proven ineffective).
They’re not even theologians, although the frequency with which they bring religion into discussions makes me think evangelical preacher would be a better career fit for many of them.
None, except perhaps Jeb Bush and maybe Chris Christie has the courage to tell the truth as he sees it and let their honesty be what defines them. According to Fox, having the honesty to stick with unpopular positions is the biggest problem these two have. Doesn’t say much for the integrity of the GOP imo.
What the hell does FOX know about honesty?
I’m looking for hope and a lot of change. Maybe the current generation has to die off before these ridiculous attitudes give way. We’re talking 20 or 30 years. Today’s typical American grew up with Billy Graham. Forgetting is the change we need.
Proportionally you may be correct, however I and Prof. Coyne are older than some of these clowns in the republican party and we sure did not grow up with Billy Graham.
I’m generalizing of course, but the numbers of fundamentalists is overwhelming.
I think the trade off came at the time of the founders, may peace be with them. The first amendment’s “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion”, which we tend to venerate. This set loose the brazen marketplace inflicting a thousand cuts. If they had gone the route of the British and kept a gentle church up close where they could keep and eye on it…but, no, the floodgates where lifted and we are shore to shore with a great sea of proselytizers, promoters, and idiot charlatans. Perhaps that is where the war could have been won.
I used to think I could wait for the idiots to die off. I’m now pushing 65 and realizing that there are a lot of idiot, like Scott Walker, who are considerably younger than I am.
Waiting isn’t a winning strategy.
A very insightful and quotable post – I may have to use this in future (with citation, of course).
Sadly true.
It’s hard to un-brainwash someone, and they start them young.
Dumb is everywhere in every demographic!
I believe it was Eisenhower who was reportedly distressed when he heard that half of all Americans are of below average intelligence.
It’s confirmation of how ignorant they believe their contingency to be. Useful ignoramuses.
Has the question of accepting evolution been asked of the leading Democratic candidates? A quick check here indicates that Hillary Clinton has views that seem pretty acceptable. Of course this link is pretty far to the right.
But I wonder about other Democratic hopefuls. It would not surprise me that some would at least waffle on the question.
Ah, the plutocratic party, as opposed to the theocratic plutocratic party!
My thoughts as well: would it be possible for someone to compile a similar list of leading Democrats re: evolutionary “belief”?
Gotta love Jindal. I’m not an evolutionary biologist. It’s like saying you’re not a mathematically literate engineer.
Yeah I’ve more of an intuitive-feeling approach to engineering. Nothing I make works or even holds together, but I’m not willing to compromise my beliefs by relying on Satan’s maths.
I’m not a government specialist. I’m just a governor.
Well generally the ilk of their type do claim not to be politicians in a sense – they are just regular folks.
And the list of elected deniers of anthropomorphic climate change would be several times as long as the one above.
Denying evolution is a crime against children – Happy Darwin Day, BTW – and it retards their rationality generally as it is a critical fact about the world we live in. And the anti-evolution position does enormous damage also to research in medicine, as we saw with the absurd stem cell debacle a decade ago.
The denial of climate change may be even more damaging, literally putting at risk our survival as a species, or at the very least leaving us open to massive economic disaster. It is not a coincidence that the two go hand-in-hand, and not only because they are both hobbyhorses of the faithful: I think fighting climate-related legislation, specifically greenhouse gas regulation, is the goal, and the denial of the truth of evolution is both a cultural test of anti-science cred and a foundational part of the epistemological closure required to be blind to man-made climate change.
And so WTF is wrong with the wealthy, especially the industrialists (assuming they still exist), the rentiers and the speculators: there is so much more wealth to be generated from embracing evolution and confronting climate change – possibly trillions of dollars more over a few decades, according to some studies – than from denial and god-bothering. Don’t they want all the money? Could it really be they don’t see it? Someone should tell them.
I am curious about the origin of climate change denial. It should be pretty obvious that a big source comes from the fossil fuel industry. But what is up with the strong Christian-based denial of climate change? Is that b/c God promised to never flood the earth, so global warming and sea level rise cannot be real?
You could also ask what is up with their support of free market capitalism and rejection of welfare/government care for the poor. All three positions seem to be somewhat opposite historical christian positions.
I think these are examples of what SCOTUS Justice Hugo Black mentioned back in the 1960s. “A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.” The religious right made a union with the republican party, and this union is ‘degrading’ their independence on a variety of positions.
Another way to say it: they are growing to resemble the party they got into bed with.
For God so loved the poor, that He wanted there to be more of them.
The clergy is a key element in this political coupling. They decided to trade independence for power and agreed to do the convincing so the politicians don’t have to. Once the congregants/electorate are softened up, just hit the right notes and you win. It really wouldn’t matter whether the politics were harmonious with Christian dogma or not.
I think eric is right that it’s mostly about the team becoming homogenized.
Christian beliefs do reinforce this though. That the Earth is in God’s control is one of these beliefs, but not so much in the Noah sense that the Earth won’t be destroyed by water again. Rather, it’s more the belief that there is some time when Jesus will return and the Earth will be destroyed. God, it is said, has pre-planned this destruction and knows it’s date (see Matthew 24 for where they get this http://bit.ly/1F2u4kF). So, obviously, man can’t destroy the Earth because God has a plan to destroy it himself. And if something we do -does- actually destroy the Earth, well, obviously we were the instrument of what God had planned all along and there is no use fighting it.
Coupled with this is the general nihilism that stems from believing that the Earth won’t last long. Christians always imagine that they are living in the end times, that things are getting worse and that Jesus will return “soon”. They differ a lot on what “soon” is, but there are basically zero Christians who are taking a 200 year view of things, much less longer than that. They are stuck in a kind of eternal “now”. Their Bible belief, for a great many of them, prevents them from seeing very far back in time because either the Earth is young or at least was created expressly for the human goings on of the last few thousand years, and their escatology prevents them from looking very far into the future.
Even some of my more scientifically literate Christian friends fall back on this as a simple response to the scariness of climate change. Like cancer, it’s something that feels big and scary and out of their personal control. Their Christian eschatology allows them to punt on confronting this scary thing. Just close your eyes and let God sort it out.
That’s certainly what some Christian politicians have said, on camera.
/@
My reading of it is that they think humans are being arrogant for asserting it’s possible for mere humans to so dramatically alter their omnipotent god’s world. I’m still pretty confident I smell oil on that belief though.
You’re right of course. If you were young, ambitious and interested in the financial long-term you’d be an idiot to consistently denigrate alternative energy sources and deny the science that shows how much we need them – but climate change deniers are generally middle-aged or older, entrenched(in that they are already in hoc to the vested interests of fossil fuel companies) and utterly unconcerned about the long-term. Even deniers who are relatively young can’t imagine anything happening in their life-time that would warrant a change of mind. It’s too far-off for most people to care. Deniers are just people who ladle unreason on top of apathy.
It’s hard enough for anyone to really care about things that’ll happen after they’re dead so if someone’s political career is at least partly reliant on the favour of massively powerful energy companies(and at the moment, in terms of sway and financial power, alternative energy companies just can’t compete with the big oil, coal and gas companies. Politicians barely have to listen to alternative energy corporate interests), and if, in the short term they can get very, very rich, and if they are already in their 50s and 60s, and if they are also greedy little shits, then the clear common-sense of your argument doesn’t apply to them.
Perhaps these people will just die out and a younger generation, who might give a toss, will take their place. I don’t know. But caring about what happens to the world after we’re dead isn’t something we evolved to do very well. It takes effort, compassion and a certain amount of self-sacrifice.
Yes, it is ‘willful ignorance’ that they do not know the science on which evolution stands. They could learn it through a few days spent reading and thinking. Too much trouble and not needful. But it is plain old hypocrisy too: politicians are shrewd, if nothing else, and this blighted pack lives by an acute sense of smell, theirs for the red meat, ours for the reeking stink they leave in their wake.
Well, at least the two parties are distinguishable…
In Britain most of the complaints are that politics isn’t sufficiently ideological, and the two main parties are essentially the same. A common plaint is that there’s really no right/left divide any more. Lately the hand-wringing over the state of British politics has been widespread – voter apathy, public contempt for politicians, etc(I sometimes think that voter apathy in the west is a luxury that only relatively well-off, healthy voters can afford, and that voter apathy and general disinterest in politics might track societal success rather than failure).
But then looking at America makes me rather grateful. Who’d want a system where the two parties seem so incapable of dialogue? The right seem so entrenched that even the slightest drift towards the centre is political suicide. No-one’s asking these guys to stand up for a purely materialistic evolution – there are plenty of religious people who fudge it and talk about theistic evolution or some other convoluted, Heath-Robinson-esque compromise. Would it really kill their careers stone-dead to say they agree with the Pope on evolution?
The terror of alienating their core base was meant to be part of the reason for Obama’s successes, in that the Republicans alienated conservative minority votes by concentrating solely on white, christian right-wingers. After the last election I remember quite a few articles about the recognition amongst Republicans of the need to shift their focus and broaden their appeal.
Of course evolution arguably isn’t that important in that respect, but still – nothing I hear indicates that they’ve really recognised the need to broaden their appeal from the ever-diminishing Republican hardcore. I guess that’s good news for liberals right…? I’d appreciate someone who knows about this setting me straight.
If the Republicans could ever swing back toward the political center and navigate a moderate, middle-of-the-road candidate through the Republican primaries, then that Republican would likely win the presidency. I think the biggest voting block are the ‘swing voters’ that vote for one or other party, depending.
What you say is pretty close to the way it is. The republicans have done so well at the state level, they believe they can maintain the crazy and still get the presidential ring as well. But the heavy load of religion and their long held conviction that government is bad, especially if it is federal govt. will not allow for much broader appeal. They must continue to lose that elected office or we are finished.
Hopefully that’s them being over-confident. The idea of someone even more apocalyptically religious than Bush getting into power, just as the middle-east is in the state it is, just as ISIS are on the tipping point between success and failure, just as Russia, Israel-Palestine and Iran are at their most politically volatile…
One thing you can probably say about Obama is that he hasn’t made the situation in any of those countries much worse. Those hotspots are so volatile and it requires incredible skill to manoeuvre around them politically. The idea of some black-and-white thinker like Bush or Cheney loping into the frame is chilling. The general consensus on the American right, AFAICT, is that America needs to be far more militarily engaged in these places, which is not a view the rest of the world necessarily endorses;)
The problem is, polls say around 68% of Americans want Obama to be tougher on DAESH. They don’t recognize how well Obama is handling the situation.
It’s an unbelievably complicated world picture that he has to deal with. I hear a lot of reports on how far his stock has fallen but as far as I can see he’s dealing with it all rather skilfully.
The key to US politics is the primaries. A nationally electable Republican has a very hard time surviving the party primaries which are decided by the most ideologically driven Republican voters. With more than one primary candidate, they inevitably try to out-ideologe each other in order to secure the votes of the ideologues who vote in primaries.
I think the only way to change this is for less ideological people to vote in primaries. That’s tricky, though. When voter turn out is so low in the actual election, how do you motivate people to vote in primaries? Highly zealous loons turn out in droves because they are motivated by their zealotry. It’s sad, of course. Moderates should see what is at stake and bother to engage, but they don’t.
As to why the Republicans are, currently, more ideological, more at risk of losing a primary to a more ideological foe (called “getting primaried”) is an interesting question. There are certainly ideological liberals with zeal and passion, but they don’t dominate the Democratic party at the moment. Their embrace of religion and other emotional causes might be part of it. I think another part is simply that in a two party system, you can only really have one ideologically pure party. The most narrowly constructed party will drive all the rest to their only other choice and that will be a reinforcing loop as moderates driven from one party dilute the zealots in the other.
Ambiguous sentence clarification:
their embrace of religion and other = Republican embrace of religion and other
The problem is exacerbated by the early primaries being in more conservative states. Jeb Bush, for example, is talking about raising enough money to survive the early primaries.
The advice given to Republicans is: go right for the primates, and back to the center for the general election.
They can’t afford to do that too much imo because the comments come back to haunt them in the general election.
It doesn’t seem to have deterred them much in the past.
David Axelrod says only 20% vote in primaries. Therefore the True Believer ideologs determine who gets nominated.
A question for politicians? It informs directly a politician’s worth as a critically thinking person. No respectably politician (or human) would choose ignorance over falsifiable evidence.
Likewise, it should be widely advertised that politicians who believe they are going to live forever, should state this at least once a week to their constituents on their webpages and give reasons for what they expect after death. The inaccurate and arbitrary claims should worry their constituents about any subject they are meant to make pertinent decisions about.
If they’re willfully ignorant about one subject, what’s stopping them from being the same on other subjects. Would they change their idiology, politics, religious practices if it showed to lessen human happiness, health, economy, or would they stand by it everyone else be damned.
I would like to see how the Democrats would standup to that same question. I wish it were otherwise but I would suspect there would be many who would have a problem with not hedging but instead giving the electorate what they know would be the honest, forceful and correct answer.
This is a good point. It would be nice to see how all candidates answer it, not just one party’s.
Oh, please, please don’t. I suspect you’d get a lot of evolution as the process by which God…
As I mention above, Hillary Clinton seems to have her head on straight about the issue. But I agree that one should not be surprised to see a lot of wibbly wobbly answers among others.
From An atheist web site:
(http://atheism.about.com/od/hillaryclintonreligion/tp/HillaryClintonReligionSecular.htm)
‘ Hillary Clinton on Science & Evolution
The Christian Right attacks many aspects of science at almost every opportunity, but their primary target is and probably will remain evolutionary theory. They try to prevent evolution from being taught in schools; almost the only political defense of science comes from Democrats like Hillary Clinton. According to Clinton, no form of creationism — not even Intelligent Design creationism — should be taught as if it were science alongside evolution: “Schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about the Bible or other scripture in the teaching of history or literature, for example.” There are possible venues for teaching about creationist beliefs, but Hillary Clinton agrees that science class is not one of them.’
Clinton is simply better than the alternative but she is far from being on the right train with the religious issues. Too many years in Arkansas maybe.
I know what you mean, but you realize that only those who pay lip service to religion need apply…
Al Gore included Adam&Eve in his historical timeline and said he believed in them. This is bipartisan absurdity.
Eve was obviously a democrat and budding scientist. She sought knowledge and questioned the argument from authority that the apple was forbidden.
Which, to some Republicans, makes her a man-hating whore in league with Satan who will burn in hell forever, which they’ll enjoy watching from heaven.
“That’s a question politicians shouldn’t be involved in one way or another.”
I think it’s the public’s right to know. If you don’t accept evolution then I don’t accept that you are qualified to govern in the 21st century.
We recently had a municipal election here in Nanaimo, BC. I went to the all candidates meeting and asked every candidate if they accepted evolution or not.
Over half of them did and they were the ones who were endorsed by Nanaimo Atheist FB page.
One told me- ” You can’t ask that.” My response – ” Of course I can – you don’t have to answer.” Funny thing was – he was one of the Atheists. LOL
Jerry – 12 vs one would still be grossly unfair. As I have articulated in the past, with regards to combinations of wit, where wit < 1, the proper operation is to multiply not add.
So in this case it would be your single wit against a combined equivalent of 0.00002 wit units (generously assigning halfwit status to each).
🙂
Politicians do in fact consult reputable scientists frequently.
Walling off science from politics is like saying politicians should have no position on GMOs, vaccines, global warming, the feasibility of a new mission to Mars, investment in clean coal, etc. etc. etc.
Walker makes is sound as if evolution is a speculation about the distant past that therefore does not concern us. But evolution is directly relevant to medicine, so this is false.
I suppose that you could argue a politician should not have a position on the black hole disputes between Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind, but that is genuinely a tad esoteric and remote from immediate life in a way that evolution is not.
The politician who did have a position on the black hole disputes would have, if not my vote, at least my attention! 😉
“Politicians do in fact consult reputable scientists frequently.”
I would hope they do, and I hope not just reputable pollsters. With the poll information they know how to “interpret” the science for their constituents.
“I’m not a scientist.” Wow. That is pathetic. Let’s see, is he an economist? An educator? Why should we listen to anything he has to say if it’s outside his “area of expertise,” which is now, apparently, foreign policy.
Why is that pathetic? I’m not a historian but I think the allies won the second world war; I’m not a biologist but I think we evolved by natural selection. What do credentials have to do with it?
I think you’ve misunderstood Dave’s response. He is noting that politicians opine on areas outside their area of expertise all the time, as do we all. The excuse they’re making for not talking about evolution is pathetic. Which is what you are saying also by pointing out that there is a lot of stuff we know about different subjects without being experts. Obviously, the acceptance of evolutionary theory doesn’t require one to be a scientist.
Thank you, Heather, for clarifying my rather hastily written comment! 🙂
We elect too many cowards.
From a New Yorker article titled, Republican Voters Responding to Walker’s Opposition to Knowledge by Andy Borowitz:
“Moments like that, the aide said, show why Walker will win the White House in 2016. ‘The American people are sick and tired of a President who knows things,’ he said. ‘They’re ready for Scott.’”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/republican-voters-responding-walkers-opposition-knowledge
I find that astonishing that opposition to knowledge is deemed a good strategy and that anyone would vote for a candidate that treats ignorance as if it were a virtue.
Brainless by the Dozen, or Not a Neuron in the Carton. Take your pick.
Love how Bobby Jindal, a biology graduate, says he didn’t really understand evolution. Dude, I’m an arts grad and I understand evolution. I had to take it in anthropology for crying out loud. Either he’s lying, he forgot, or he got some poor marks.
… or he went to a Xian school.
The Republicans are completely and incontrovertibly the party of the rich now. When they talk about inequality increasing during the Obama years – and it has – anyone who is even remotely not already in their vote column just laughs. I don’t think that even among the party loyalists among the non-rich anyone believes the GOP will do anything to improve their economic situation. So, that leaves God, gays, and guns. No Republican will “lead” on evolution or gay marriage or guns. The entire party is now totally committed to the plutocrat-theocrat coalition because they’re only way to the White House is to make people put aside their own self interest in favor of fears and bigotry and religion.
…their only way…
They merely ape opinions rather than forming them.
Ben Carson called “Kirk Cameron’s Saving Christmas” the best movie of 2014. I need not say more.