Measured Against Reality

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Huckabee on Evolution

I was reading The Economist's summary of last night's debate, and came across this gem:

Huckabee: If he were in contention for the nomination he would've been declared the debate's winner. He certainly had the best answers of the night, including a thoughtful response to a question on evolution.

I believe there is a God. I believe there's a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it and when did he do it and how long did he take, I don't honestly know. And I don't think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president.


That's not a thoughtful response, it's a cop-out and it's admitting his ignorance. He's saying that he's entirely ignorant of the fundamental principle of modern biology. How could we trust him to make thoughtful, informed decisions on biological matters? His opinions on everything from medical to ecological to scientific questions would all be invalid because of his ignorance.

Not understanding evolution undoubtedly makes someone a worse president, and the fact that his answer passes for "thoughtful" shows how unbelievably shallow the public understanding of science truly is.

For the record, I don't have anything in particular against theistic evolutionists (like Ken Miller). It would be nice if they would just man up and take a rational look at their religious beliefs, scrutinizing them as they would any other belief, but at least they accept evolution (and presumably the rest of science). Huckabee wasn't admitting that he's a theistic evolutionist, he was admitting that he knows nothing of evolution and doesn't care to learn about it. He was also admitting his aforementioned ignorance on a subject crucial to many modern issues, and said that he didn't think it would affect his performance. This goes beyond theistic evolution into something more dangerous and sinister: scientific decisions being made based on bad science (or no science). That lack of informed decision-making is exactly why we're in such bad positions in so many ways, from climate to Iraq, and that a presidential candidate can actually be applauded for a statement that he will perpetuate this situation testifies to the extent of the problem.

Labels: , , ,

8 Comments:

  • They didn't ask if he understood evolution, but if he believed in evolution. You totally missed the point.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:36 PM, June 06, 2007  

  • When I saw this, I read it as "I kind of believe in evolution, but I can't say that or I risk losing votes, so I'll say something vague about God and say it's irrelevant." If he wanted to make a strong statement against evolution he would have done so.

    While I agree it's not insightful, I don't know if I'd slap an "ignorant" tag on him. He's trying to win votes, and this appeared to be a sidestep more than anything.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:36 PM, June 06, 2007  

  • Anonymous #1, read the quote. He said, "Now, how did he do it and when did he do it and how long did he take, I don't honestly know." He admitting to not understanding evolution.

    Anonymous #2, he might just be pandering to his audience, but I'm not quite so sure about that. And if he is pandering, I think that says more about the state of politics than him just being ignorant.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 1:40 PM, June 06, 2007  

  • Stupac2, no, you're reading it wrong. He admitted to not understanding creationism. He actually didn't say ANYTHING about evolution, just about his unsureness over how creation played out. I don't think he was denying understanding evolution at all.

    By Blogger Brandon, at 3:17 PM, June 06, 2007  

  • I don't think it's too bad, he admitted he doesn't know so I would assume he would seek advice from those who do know if the question comes up. IMO a government leader should have a knowledge of law and economics, and a willingness to consult with experts when they don't know anything.

    By Anonymous Alex, at 5:07 PM, June 06, 2007  

  • Arguemant,arguemant, arguement, when is it going to stop. It could be stopped very soon...

    If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

    After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

    If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

    Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

    Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

    Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:10 PM, June 07, 2007  

  • Hey ARGUMENT man,

    Maybe you should learn how to spell argument before you attempt to espouse one. Or, at the very least, agree with yourself about how you're going to misspell it.

    Perhaps people could take you more seriously then. Just a thought.

    By Blogger Terra, at 3:37 PM, June 08, 2007  

  • Ha Terra, that made me laugh. I didn't even catch that it was misspelled.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 3:39 PM, June 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home