Over the years I have made numerous attempts to highlight the lack of correlation between intellectual acumen and political stature. Once in a while comes somebody with professional writing skills to perform the task better than I ever have. Most recently David H. Bailey and Jonathan M. Borwein, writing for the Huffington Post, did us all a good service.
What on Earth Do They Think? U.S. Politicians on the Age of the Planet
At least one of the recent presidential candidates (Texas Governor Rick Perry) similarly responded when asked how old the earth was: “I don’t have any idea, I know it’s pretty old,” but then added that he wasn’t sure whether anyone knew “completely and absolutely” the age of the earth.
Along this line, presidential candidates Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Ron Paul labeled climate change “a hoax,” even as the scientific evidence for global warming continues to mount, and the need for world governments to take action grows more pressing.
Is this based on ignorance or political expedience? As the New York Times writes about Rubio, “if his response was more proof of cunning than idiocy, it was still ludicrous.”
Marco Rubio from GQ
As Bailey and Borwein tell it (quoting CBS News), “Paul C. Broun (R-Ga.), who serves on the U.S. House Science and Technology Committee, declared his views in these jaw-dropping terms:”
All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.
I have previously mentioned Broun and others in another post.
Those who read this blog will know that I have contributed money to the Obama campaign and most likely voted for Democratic candidates. Readers will also note that the political exemplars of ignorance I cite tend to be Republican. In fact, I have from time to time referred to the Republican Party as the Party of Dumb. Some may think there is a correlation, and there is. You are going to have to trust me when I say the correlation is from the reports and to my political leanings and not the other way around.
Other outlets have noted the Republican Party’s infatuation with pseudo science and a corresponding disdain for real science.
The Amarillo Globe-News reports on Republican candidate for the Texas Board of Education candidate Marty Rowley’s disdain for modern biological science:
“Evolutionists would say that we progressed to this point through a series of unplanned, random circumstances and random events,” he said. “I don’t believe that tells the whole story. I think there is more to our creation that indicates an intelligent being that has played a significant role.”
Republican contender for the presidency Michele Bachman thinks, among other things, that modern climate science is a hoax:
“The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax,” Bachmann said.
Bachmann is also known to be opposed to modern biological science.
It took courage for Senator Bachmann to go on this show and reveal how evolution is even now being forced down the throats of our children; there are very few politicians willing to tell the truth about the liberal conspiracy to teach evolution in our schools. Among the bombshells dropped by Bachmann during her radio appearance were the following:
1) (Evolution) is a theory that has never been proved, one way or the other.
2) The fossil record is a dearth, meaning not much, evidence of evolution.
3) Evolution is a belief; evolution is not a fact.
4) Senator Bachmann charged that the State of Minnesota is going to compel its students to prove that evolution is “true”, and at the same time prohibit students from bringing in evidence to the contrary.
I have also noted the lack of scientific integrity of candidates Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum.
It’s the club of those scientists, journalists and other “thinkers” who feel entitled to condemn and mock intelligent design without having first bothered to do even a little homework on their own and learn what ID actually says. The revered “Doonesbury” cartoonist comes out today with a strip where fictional reporter Rick Redfern asks real-life Texas governor Rick Perry, “You’ve dismissed evolution as ‘Just a theory that’s out there.’”
Perry replies: “Yes, I believe in intelligent design.”
Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I think it’s a theory: The Theory of Evolution. And I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory. — Ron Paul on evolution, December 1, 2007
“Man-made global warming is poppycock. I don’t believe in it. If people look at the real data, the climate has varied ever since we have known that the planet was here.”
“We know that those scientists who tried to concoct the science to say that we had a hockey stick global warning and they were busted because they manipulated the data.”
There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak, who are afraid of that discussion because, oh my goodness, you might mention the word, God-forbid, “God” in the classroom, or “Creator,” that there may be some things that are inexplainable by nature where there may be, where it’s actually better explained by a Creator, and of course we can’t have that discussion. It’s very interesting that you have a situation where science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that’s scientific. Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn’t explain all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don’t you pursue that? But you can’t, because it’s not science, but if science is pointing you there, how can you say it’s not science? It’s worth the debate.
For the record, Mitt Romney, the eventual Republican candidate, has no problem with the science behind evolutionary biology and climate change. Neither does another losing Republican, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman.
So, are there Democratic candidates who could qualify as candidates from Hell? I am happy to report I did find one such, and there could be more. Google was unable to help me locate the ralated news item, so I appeal to readers to bring forward a recent Democratic candidate (this past election) who advocates teaching Intelligent Design.
Skeptical Analysis 