Over at FrumForum, Ask About Evolution at the GOP Debate:
Prompting James Pethokoukis to ask: “Will we now get an evolution/global warming question at next GOP debate?”
I hope the answer to this question is “yes.” The great thing is that there is precedent for this. In one of the GOP primary debates in 2007, John McCain was asked whether or not he believed in evolution. He responded that he did, and the moderator then asked for a show of hands of candidates who did not believe in evolution.
Although the GOP is often viewed as the party opposed to science, remarkably, only three candidates raised their hands: Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo.
I’ve argued before that this is an issue where class is telling in the G.O.P. The fiscal conservative/business elites aren’t Creationists, but the social conservative/grassroots often are. The former are disproportionately represented among the leading candidates for very high office, so despite the dominant Creationism of the grassroots the candidates themselves tend to espouse elite views on evolution. A realignment on this issue will be a sure sign that populism in the G.O.P. is the real deal.
The question would need to more specifically address the origin of human beings. Creationists have no problem that horses and zebras evolved from a single pair on the Ark.
Of course, the fundamental tenet of modern liberalism is that evolution of human abilities stopped the moment homo sapiens branched into a separate species, with only superficial cosmetic changes in things like hair, noses and melanin adapting to different environments. They’re not going to push the scientific study of human evolution where science would take it, either.
“Of course, the fundamental tenet of modern liberalism is that evolution of human abilities stopped the moment homo sapiens branched into a separate species…”
I think you would have an extremely difficult time locating any actual liberals who believe that.
Welp, Perry eliminated himself as a serious nominee in my view. I was already leaning against him for geographical reasons, but his answer to that kid and and the kid’s horribly manipulative mother marked him out as either woefully unprepared or just plain stupid. Romney it is.
One thing in Perry’s favor now, Obama’s near treasonous abandonment of immigration enforcement. It whoever wins the nomination–even if it’s Lucifer himself–will be preferable to another four years of Teh ONE.
“I think you would have an extremely difficult time locating any actual liberals who believe that.”
I think that very few liberals would agree with the statement, “There are genetic differences between ethnic groups that contribute to differences in ability and behavior.” Of course, no conservative politician would say this out loud, but plenty of conservative writers of opinion believe it. I can’t think of any liberal analogs to Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, Derb, ect.
Heck, it’s even hard to get a lot of people to admit that there are genetic differences between men and women. I remember having a debate with three liberals about whether or not, on average, men are stronger than women. Somebody who denies even that is in the same category as someone who denies evolution–a person who so desperately doesn’t want something to be true that they refuse to even consider it.
Has it been determined–more or less–how many people will NOT vote for a candidate who doesn’t espouse creationism? Is it a deal-breaker for that large a segment of the population?
susan, i think creationism is a shallow sentiment. unlike abortion it isn’t “make-or-break.”
Liberals? As a geneticist, I’d say you’d have to look pretty hard to find a geneticist who would agree with the claim that “there are genetic differences between ethnic groups that contribute to differences in ability and behavior.” Human populations are notoriously diverse, and the variation within them totally swamps the variation between them. Ethnic groups aren’t even populations — they’re even more fluid and genetically diverse within the groups. And our knowledge of the genetic basis of behavior is still in its infancy.
I can’t think of any liberal analogs to Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, Derb, ect.
Steven Pinker and, I think, Pete Singer. William Saletan dipped his toe into this water, and then ran like a scalded dog when he was treated to the usual librage.
Has it been determined–more or less–how many people will NOT vote for a candidate who doesn’t espouse creationism?
It might count in the primary. In the general, no Republican will not vote because the nominee accepts evolution. It’ll be another issue that keeps them home. Here, I’d agree with Hume. A pro-choice Republican would suffer a serious enthusiasm deficit.
As far as Perry goes, his “creationist” answer didn’t annoy me for advocating creationism as much as it exposed Perry’s inadequacy over all. He claimed Texas public schools teach creationism and evolution. They don’t. It’s just evolution, like the rest of the country. Not only does he not even know the basic groundrules, but he doesn’t know he doesn’t know. He did the same thing with the predator drone/border issue. The only thing good you can say about the man now is that he’ not Obama.
Thanks, Razib. I get that creationism isn’t a deal-breaker in and of itself, but isn’t it invariably tied in with some other socio-religious factors that may well be deal-breakers for a certain group?
@Polichinello Obama has deported more illegal immigrants that any other President, about 700,000. I’m not insisting that everyone like the guy, but criticize where it is due. There is plenty of stuff that Obama has not done to discuss, immigration enforcement isn’t one of them.
CNN had a long segment, repeated several times, bashing Michele Bachmann because her husband believes gays can be reoriented. (The science IMHO points the other way but is not settled.) But I haven’t heard any criticism of her creationist views.
but isn’t it invariably tied in with some other socio-religious factors that may well be deal-breakers for a certain group?
invariably is too strong. people like george w. bush expressed wiggle and ambivalence when it came to evolution (so did reagan), but it didn’t negate his evangelical authenticity. being pro-choice would have, though there are a substantial minority of pro-choice evangelicals, they’re all dems or liberal probably.
There is plenty of stuff that Obama has not done to discuss, immigration enforcement isn’t one of them.
Spare me the spin, Ari. His department has officially given up on immigration enforcement for all illegals, except for the most egregious cases, so NOW it’s become something to discuss. HE did that, not me.
And not only is he not enforcing the law, he’s handing out work permits up to possibly 300,000 illegals right off the bat, and more later. If you don’t think that merits objection, then you don’t merit further attention.
“Steven Pinker and, I think, Pete Singer.”
Good points.
@John: “Heck, it’s even hard to get a lot of people to admit that there are genetic differences between men and women.”
True, there are still people who run from the idea that we aren’t all gifted with the same talents. But my take on that is that this has more to do with shaping public policy than it does with an objective view of human nature.
We’ve definitely had our share of politicians in this country’s history who were all too willing to encode racial differences into the law. I don’t have a problem with it being discussed, but when it starts to reach into policy (always with the whiff of electoral advantage for one party or the other) we’re into the realm of emotional appeals and bias confirmation, not critical thinking.
Even if it could be proven that people in Racial Group X are less intelligent but better long-distance runners than the rest of us, it does not follow that the political sphere should act in any way on this, except perhaps to prevent exploitation of them by people who see value for themselves in other peoples’ running ability.
If you know your history, you know to be afraid of the misuse of these statistics. (And really: you guys don’t accept the Murray position at face value, do you? He’s got a long history of misusing and selectively choosing statistics to buttress his ideology, and perhaps a longer one of chasing controversy.)
“it does not follow that the political sphere should act in any way on this”
It’s not so much that I think the state should act on this, so much as I think that taking this into account would prevent unwise action. I am not proposing any type of segregation: Thomas Sowell is smarter than me regardless of what it turns out any average genetic differences are, and everyone has the same human rights and should have opportunities.
However, a lot of public policy today is based on the denial that differences exist. NCLB is a classic example of a law based on a flawed view of human nature: that everyone is capable of being proficient at math, reading, ect. Schools, from elementary to college, are constantly being pressured to dumb down their content in order to increase “retention rates” and decrease “dropout rates”. Society must acknowledge that not every kid is the same, and if we give all children the same opportunities, and that there will be gaps in academic achievement between ethnic groups that the government just can’t do anything about.
Should employers be sued if only 6% of their computer programmers are hispanic, even though they are 14% of the population? Should fire departments be able to give written tests for promotion even if blacks on average do not score as highly? Nobody longs for the days of separate drinking fountains, but I do think that a recognition of group differences would prevent a lot of resource-distorting public policy.
I move that invocations of treason be added to Godwin’s Law.
Move all you want, D. I couldn’t care less what your sort has to say these days.