GOV. PAWLENTY: We’ve said in Minnesota, in my view, this is a local decision. Intelligent design is something that, in my view, is plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in but, more importantly, from an educational and scientific standpoint, it should be decided by local school boards at the local school district level.
The problem with local school boards is that when they go for this stuff, like in Dover, PA, they don’t generally slant toward anodyne Intelligent Design shorn of its sectarian connotations. This is why the Discovery Institute worked to disassociate themselves from the Dover School District.
In any case, I’m on the record as saying that predictions for 2012 are very premature. But, it looks like 3 of the front-runners for the G.O.P. nomination are rather frank Creationists (Palin, Huckabee and Pawlenty). I’m skeptical about any of these as likely candidates (i.e., if you had to make a bet you’re going to be surprised), but if you keep adding individuals to the list it seems likely that we’re looking at a serious probability that the G.O.P. nominee in 2012 will be a Creationist.
Creationism doesn’t really have the same valence as abortion as a “culture war” issue, but, it is useful in being a distinctive marker for social conservative candidates. Mitt Romney is now notionally as pro-life as the social conservatives, but it seems unlikely that he’ll flip his position on evolution since he expressed himself so explicitly in the 2008 debates.
I don’t see that there’s evidence to declare Palin a creationist. When campaigning for governor of Alaska, she adopted the “teach the controversy” talking point in a debate, but then in an interview clarified that she would not require intelligent design in the curriculum and would be satisfied if there was no “prohibition against debate if it comes up in class.” I’d think Charles Johnson’s judgment that Palin holds “a position that doesn’t cause me (a staunch anti-creationist) any discomfort” (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31088_Sarah_Palin_and_Creationism) would be good enough for Secular Right; if you’re expecting a Republican politician to declare evangelical creationists beyond the pale, my guess is you’re going to be disappointed.
Ugh! I cannot support a candidate that is either massively ignorant or willfully blind. Too bad there isn’t a secular right party to field a candidate.
How logical is it to support candidates whose policies you believe are bad for you and the country because the candidate you agree with on policies disagrees with you on a topic which has little bearing on public policy? The fact is we have factional politics even though we only have two parties. I saw someone point out regarding politics in other western democracies that having multiple parties means you vote for the party you agree with. Then that party has to form a coalition with another party to have a majority. In the US, we have to form the coalition before the election. There is no consensus of opinion among smart people, so liberal people form a coalition with the grievance groups and conservatives have to join with the religious or have no power. There is no perfect solution where you get a pure form of everything you want.
jeff, she might not be a creationist, but her religious background strongly suggests she should be one. the majority of american protestants are now creationists, and the vast majority of conservative & evangelical protestants. until she makes a clear statement i’ll be willing to bet $100 she’s a creationist. i’m fairly certain, but not 100%.
if you’re expecting a Republican politician to declare evangelical creationists beyond the pale, my guess is you’re going to be disappointed.
don’t worry, i won’t be disappointed because that’s not an issue with me.
How logical is it to support candidates whose policies you believe are bad for you and the country because the candidate you agree with on policies disagrees with you on a topic which has little bearing on public policy?
who are you talking to? i know my posts can be a bit laconic to the point of opaque as to what i’m trying to get at, but this one is rather straightforward. i know that the modus operandi in political blogging to read between the lines and respond as if you can read the poster’s mind, but let’s not go there. i’m still willing to bet that the G.O.P. elites will be too embarrassed to have a creationist as the top of the ticket, so no need to address a likely moot question (though yes, the probability is now not trivial, so we’ll cross that bridge if we get to it).
One major advantage of parliamentary systems is that they allow a lot more choice in candidates. If the us used a parliamentary system the non-theocratic right wing would likely have a very viable party.
Of course Palin is a creationist, but so what. Is she going to outlaw evolution? I don’t think she would run anyway because she is too much of a target. Mitt Romney seems more likely. I also don’t think he will try to outlaw evolution. What federal policy would be affected by such a belief anyway? Really, I think Republicans shouldn’t accept the false premise that the issue is relevant to governing. I don’t even think fundies give a damn if the president believes in evolution or not because it isn’t a policy issue. Huckabee was the only candidate who would commit to a border fence and border enforcement during the primaries. Would he actually do it if president? I have no idea. But at least it is a federal policy over which he would have actual authority unlike the teaching of evolution over which he has no authority and therefore no real way to affect. It is far better to leave curriculum decisions at the local level. Assuming the school board reflects the general intelligence level of a given school district, how much young academic potential is really at risk in po dunk junction? It’s not like creationists are going to take over major school districts in which the parents are highly educated.
I just think it makes sense to pick candidates that have a fiscally conservative track record, preferably as a governor, and ignore what they think about issues over which they will have no political power or even any influence. Anyway as politicians, republicans need to come up with some sort of double speak to diffuse the creationist litmus test. Something like, “I was brought up in a religious home and was taught creation as a child, but I am not a scientist and I am not going to pretend to be an authority on it. It is better left to those who know more about it than I do.” Then just refuse to elaborate. Democrats manage not to answer pertinent questions, republicans shouldn’t be bothered to answer impertinent ones.
I am not holding my breath waiting for a tightwad politician who is going to slam the views a faithful voting block for no gain. Just my 2¢, not addressing anyone, just the topic.
Would any of you consider supporting a creationist?
I would drop my party affiliation if we nominated one.
Michael, would you really vote against a creationist even if you agreed with him on every issue and believed he could actually enact the policies that you want? Would you let a creationist mow your lawn? Because the president has about as much authority over science curriculum as your gardner.
Would any of you consider supporting a creationist?
How is supporting a religious creationist any different than supporting a religious believer? Can the President impose his/her personal religious creationist beliefs on thousands of local school boards?
I don’t really care much what religious nonsense is in the hearts of politicians. Frankly, I’m far more worried about the actual damage, which impacts widely on society, that liberal creationist politicians actually do than I am about the hypothetical limited damage that a religious creationist President could ever do.
Regarding religious beliefs of candidates, I’m far less concerned about looney supernatural beliefs than deeply held social justice beliefs that readily translate to social engineering policies. I’d be concerned about a candidate’s belief in creationism because it suggests an anti-scienctific, magical thinking approach to analyzing problems. But unless that actually manifests itself in the candidate’s stance on important issues, I’d be willing to write it off as one of the inevitable irritations of politics.
Any nominee in the GOP will be religious. Really, that’s true of the Democrats as well. Obama had to plump his religious beliefs (unitl his spiritual mentor became a bit TOO well known). So any nominee will be a “creationist” of some sort. A better litmus test, IMO, is whether they’re a young earther. That’s a flat denial of undeniable reality on par with astrology, healing crystals and other quackery. So, if by ID what they generally mean is some sort of more activist theistic evolution, I don’t see a reason to freak out.
If the us used a parliamentary system the non-theocratic right wing would likely have a very viable party.
Well, probably, the Libertarians would just have a bigger share of the vote, as would the Greens on the Left.
How about an illegal immigration litmus test?
Ask them how much money and effort they would spend to deport illegals and keep them from entering.
I would vote for someone who thought the world was flat if he would deport illegals and build a real fence.
As for evolution, how many creationists are on your state and local school boards? Do you know?
I don’t think any single issue should be a litmus test but creationism, especially young earth creationism should be a serious cause for concern. If creationist merely means belief that there was deity that created the universe at some point in the indefinite past then that’s simply a religious belief. However, if the individual does not accept evolution, then we have a serious problem. Claiming that such an issue is purely religious is ridiculous: If we had a President who believed that the Earth was flat or that there was no such thing as atoms, even if they did so based on some religious logic, this would still be deeply worrying. The President needs to make many decisions that are connected to scientific issues. Having a basic understanding of science is important. Moreover, failure to accept and understand evolution is correlated with generally anti-science views and a lack of willingness to look and and understand basic evidence. Those aren’t good things in a leader. We’ve seen already that having anti-evolution views correlates strongly with anti-science attitudes. Look at Palin’s remarks on fruit flies or Jindal’s remarks about volcano monitoring.
There really is no single issue that would make me necessarily not vote for someone. At least there’s no such no single issue that one needs to worry about actually showing up; I wouldn’t ever vote for someone who wanted to bring back segregation or wanted to completely dismantle the armed forces but those not the sort of thing we need to seriously worry about major candidates from any party espousing. However, of things that can get weighed negatively, this one would have a lot weight. Polichinello’s point about young earth creationism is a good one: YECism should be much more of a concern. On the other hand, there’s almost an issue of false compromise there: Just because YECism is even more problematic doesn’t mean that other forms of evolution denial are so much better.
sg,
As to your question, in my state the answer is complicated but it looks like at least one member of our house of representatives but no members of the state or local school boards. (I’m in Massachusetts)
We’ve seen already that having anti-evolution views correlates strongly with anti-science attitudes. Look at Palin’s remarks on fruit flies or Jindal’s remarks about volcano monitoring.
Those were boners, I agree. However, I wouldn’t assign their origins to an anti-science attitude as much as to a default skepticism of government programs. I viscerally react the same way when hearing of multi-million dollar studies of some obscure species.
If creationist merely means belief that there was deity that created the universe at some point in the indefinite past then that’s simply a religious belief.
How many Democrats would meet that standard? That is if they’re serious theists? If they got the same scrutiny that GOP candidates get, then would they under questioning would agree that man and his mind developed as a result of an undirected process that featured NO divine intervention?
One other thing we’ve discussed before. Romney is a Mormon, which means he accepts some pretty foolish beliefs that have been downright falsified, like Joseph Smith’s laughable translations of some Egyptian funerary documents. Is that more troubling than YEC?
Romney is a Mormon, which means he accepts some pretty foolish beliefs that have been downright falsified, like Joseph Smith’s laughable translations of some Egyptian funerary documents. Is that more troubling than YEC?
issues of note:
1) despite kooky views the mormon subculture is more technically competent than the evangelical subculture. IOW, smart evangelicals often get assimilated to dumb norms.
2) the more i talk to intellectual mormons the more i’ve come to realize that there is just as much sorting within mormonism as to the literality of their beliefs as there is within protestantism. IOW, i’m not quite so sure anymore what romney believes about the details, though surely there are likely some ridiculous things he holds to.
3) romney has a long track-record as a technocrat. there’s really no need to *infer* from his beliefs how he would behave, you know how he would behave. pawlenty comes closer to this than either palin or huckabee, so his creationism doesn’t serve as an indicator of general kookiness.
Those are fair points, Hume, but would they be respected in a general election, assuming he got through the primaries? I can see a GOP-hostile moderator asking him specifics about The Pearl of Great Price, especially if he’s close to knocking off the Nobel Prize Winner (TM).
I can see a GOP-hostile moderator asking him specifics about The Pearl of Great Price, especially if he’s close to knocking off the Nobel Prize Winner (TM).
true. this is a complicated issue. i don’t even grant that mormonism is that crazy; catholicism’s transubstantiation isn’t weird because it is widely held.
Some things are kookier than others. Believing in an aristotelian theory for a spiritual event rates a bit lower in my book than buying into translations from a man who in recent history has been proven a fraud time and again. Still not on the Scientology level of craziness, though.
To be sure, I agree with the South Park criticism that Mormon beliefs are kooky, but Mormons themselves are good, industrious citizens, mind you.
I apologize for dragging us OT, BTW.
no worries. might be worthy of a post to sound people out. a few years ago i had some really interesting discussions with mormons on ross douthat’s blog in this vein….
Would any of you consider supporting a creationist?
I would support a Bugs Bunny worshiper if he cut government spending, appointed conservative judges, and enforced our immigration laws.
I don’t know about the Church of Bug Bunny, but a lot of Creationists tend to support Shamnesty:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_evangelicals_1
I also remember the SBC’s Richard Land banging on about Republican “nativists” on Hugh Hewitt.
I don’t know about the Church of Bug Bunny, but a lot of Creationists tend to support Shamnesty:
Excellent point. It is important to stay focused on the issues. If you look at two candidates who appear to have the same opposition to something like Amnesty for illegals, but one seems to have beliefs that might lead him to cave in, you have to consider his ability to stick with his stated position. A certain ideological worldview could make him vulnerable to compromise.
The Republican Party right now is far too dependent on the religious christianists (I am purposefully NOT capitalizing). It truly is astonishing.
These “creationists” scoff at years and years of scientific research that hundreds upon hundreds scientists have studied and verified. Yes, there is still much to learn but I will not and never will believe in literal terms, the bible or any religious text for that matter. The bible is mythology. All religion is. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There is plenty of wonderful and spiritual guidance provided by any religious texts. Spirituality does not have to encompass fundamentalism.
It is absolutely frightening (in EVERY sense of the word) that so many of today’s “Republicans” think that this country was founded on “christianity” and that’s what our forefathers would have wanted.
It’s nothing short of re-writing history or rather, ignoring it completely. John Adam, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (just to name a few) were extremely clear on their not so glowing opinions on organized religion. They excoriated organized religion.
Religion has no place in the U.S. government. None.
And look what has happened over the last 10 years. What. the heck. happened. Now we have fools who hang on Glenn the Trainwreck Beck’s every word. And Limbaugh too, who very clearly said in an interview that he is in it for the money, money, money. And yet, listeners believe Limbaugh truly “cares” for this country.
And sg, that you would vote for someone who thinks the earth is flat. Really? Wow, just wow.
Sarah Palin is flat out dangerous. Huckabee is a fundamentalist and THAT in and of itself has classic nightmare written all over it. Pawlenty is an evangelical and…sigh…need I say more. Romney believes in a cult religion of that whackadoo religion called the mormon faith.
@Jeff Peterson
I have to correct you about LGF’s position on Sarah Palin in regards how secular she is in the opinion of the blog owner. Charles Johnson has exposed Palin’s ties to far right religious groups and individuals, as well as having stated many times, he would not vote for her. So while he did post that article about Palin’s stated views on creationism, he would not call her secular by any stretch of the imagination.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/tag/sarah+palin/or/1/250/
Pingback: » Belief in Creationism Appears To Be New Litmus Test For Republicans Liberal Values
Pingback: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » A Creationist Litmus Test For Republican Nominees In 2012 ?
I think the Young Earth crowd would like to claim Sarah Palin as one of their own (www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/08/30/really-a-creationist) but can’t quite nail her down on it. In an L.A. Times article from Sept. 28, 2008, a guy named Philip Munger was quoted as saying that Palin told him that dinosaurs and humans co-existed 6000 years ago. But Munger already had a political ax to grind, and might not be entirely credible. Apparently she never pushed the teaching of creationism (Young Earth or any other variety) in the Alaska public school system. I don’t know what she really believes. If she IS a YECer, she might be shrewd enough to realize it’s a belief best kept under wraps.
Pingback: The Wild Hunt » Paganism and the Conservative Mind
Ask those candidates one question: How is crude oil formed? If they’re Young Earth Creationists and believe the world is 6,000 years old, then they don’t believe it was carbon decaying and under pressure for millions of years. They believe that God made it those 6,000 years ago and that if they just pray hard enough, he’ll make lots more.
Pingback: Notes From the Apocalypse | Popehat
Pingback: Secular Right » Notes
Well, if any of the candidates are devotees of the website http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html, they’ll reply that it takes only twenty minutes to produce petroleum. 😀
Simply put, while I think very few politicians on either side are very well versed in science, disbelief in evolution is a guaranteed indicator that the person has pretty much no concept of any scientific facts and no respect for the scientific methodologies. In fact, I would say it also indicates that the person also has little concept of mathematics and history (particularly for young Earthers).
That is an extremely dangerous way to be ignorant when so many modern policy decisions depend on a good grasp of facts, numbers, history, and science.
Great thread. I love how grown adults are seriously discussing whether or not Santa made the universe out of pixie dust.
You can’t invent material this funny.
@Thomas
Funny?
Are you sure?
As an Aussie, up late, kinda bored (a passionate hater of all politicians – regardless of their place in the spectrum of the disorder known as “politics”)I want to thank you all for a most amusing affirmation of our (that is, the rest of us on the planet)collective view that Americans are just plain stupid. Young earthers? You have got to be kidding. Keep up the good work. This obvious evidence of the decline in thinking ability simply presages the end of your era and the rise of another….I must start learning Chinese.
I must start learning Chinese.
If it weren’t for “just plain stupid” Americans you would already be fluent in Japanese. I doubt that most Australians would claim you, certainly not the ones I know.
Pingback: I fear for my country. « Why Evolution Is True
Art,
If only you had joined the war a little sooner perhaps the battle of the Coral Sea might not have been the pass/fail exam it turned out to be. In any event I suspect that members of the so called “greatest generation” who actually fought in WWII and saved our Aussie bacon would be dismayed by the nonsense that passes for public debate in your once great country. I never said I WANTED to learn Chinese, my fear though is that you Americans will deal yourselves out of contention by electing a series of bufoons of the ilk of W, Palin and anyone else who doesn’t have the sense or courage to reject superstition.
Coming late to the discussion but most Mormons don’t think the Book of Breathings (the extanct Egyptian documents) are what the religious text The Book of Abraham came from. There clearly is a relationship but believe their views or not the informed Mormon view is actually much more complex. i.e. that at best some Egyptian vignettes associated with the Book of Breathings was used to illustrate other narratives. Now one can reject this as silly. (And many do) But it’s not a theory that has been falsified as of yet.
To add I think Chris is right. Most are ignorant of science. But I think evolution more so than anything else is used to demonstrate a strong skepticism and distrust against science. I’m sure there are liberals who, like say Bill Maher, have odd pseudo-science beliefs and outright dangerous skepticism of vaccines. And I’d say such beliefs are far more politically dangerous to society than disbelief in evolution. Yet they aren’t usually seen as quite the statement against science that evolution does.
Personally, while I get as frustrated with GOP views on evolution as everyone else here, I think the bigger thing is the relationship of science to the creation of policy within the GOP. Something that isn’t as strong as I’d like to see and I halfway wonder if the general emphasis on evolution leads others to just throw science out in general.
If only you had joined the war a little sooner perhaps the battle of the Coral Sea might not have been the pass/fail exam it turned out to be.
???
On what basis would we have gone to war with Japan earlier? No western power was at war with Japan before 1941. If we had joined the European war earlier, actually, the Coral Sea battle might have ended quite badly as our resources would have been more concentrated in the Atlantic.
JP,
As far as our stupidity goes, I’m not going to return the insult because I knew a lot of Australians when I served in the Pacific, and I liked them all. I really liked Sydney, and the people at the Richmond RAAF base were great.
What I’d point out to you, though, is that our doubts on evolution aren’t really fueled by stupidity as much as a desire for taking our beliefs seriously. You really can’t believe in evolution and be a serious theist and still maintain intellectual consistency. That’s why you get a lot of resistance from people. They want their beliefs to mean something. It makes for embarassing situations when you have people going through all sorts of intellectual contortions to keep their beliefs, but it isn’t the first time people–intelligent and not so intelligent–have done this.
Pingback: Darwiniana » Politics of evolution: conservative pols
I am sorry but there is some very specific american stupidity.
Only the islamists (in a different genre of course) are able to match this deeply retarded kind of moronism!
Here’s what that stupidity comes down to:
Some people say school officials should be able to exercise discretion in such cases, but others argue that zero-tolerance policies are necessary to prevent discrimination.
IOW, policies like these are the only way the school can keep order without provoking a lawsuit from one of the perpetually aggrieved minorities we keep letting in. Is that stupid? Hell, yes, but it’s not a uniquely American form of stupidity these days.
Yes, exactly, but this is the same underlying cause: righteousness!
I have no idea what you mean.