Some conservative named Patrick Hynes is unhappy that the Republican candidates were asked their opinion of evolution. His argument is two-pronged: it is reasonable to disagree with scientific opinions on the matter, and it is unreasonable to ask the politicians of his party what their opinion of a scientific issue might be.
And here’s another tip for you, Skip: As I pointed out in In Defense of the Religious Right in a chapter titled “I Scream, You Scream, but We are The Mainstream,” everyday Americans are firmly on the side of evolution skeptics:
Seventy-eight percent of all Americans believe God created life on Earth, according to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. And 60 percent of all Americans believe either “Humans and other living things existed only in their present form” or that their evolution over time was “guided by a supreme being.” The only group in which more members believe in natural selection than believe humans and other living things have only existed in their present form is secularists. White evangelical Christians, white mainline Protestants, and white Catholics believe the opposite. (Patrick Hynes, “In Defense of the Religious Right,” p. 185, Nelson Current, 2006)
Yeah, and about 30% of Americans believe the sun goes around the earth, and about 65% deny the big bang. This is a foolish game; ask people who are ignorant of a field, and you’ll get all kinds of screwy answers. It doesn’t mean that they’re right, only that you’ve asked the wrong people. If you asked a group of biologists, astronomers, and cosmologists (you know, people who actually study the problems) you’d get a different and far more credible answer.
So what is this guy arguing? That non-secularists are stupid about science, or that science is all wrong because the local church-going drywall installer says so? Because I’d have to sign on with the former statement if those are my alternatives.
(Also, citing your own book in a paragraph which merely recites some numbers from a Pew survey is a little bit tacky, don’t you think?)
Now, I admit I run in a pretty low-brow crowd, but virtually every conversation with my friends on this subject reveals to me that I am hardly alone in my personal skepticism toward Natural Selection. I know of one person–just one–who believes we are, more or less, a slightly more fortunate breed of primate than our cousins the chimp and the gorilla. And, to be charitable, I do not value this person’s critical thinking skills.
Hang on there … so he has just cited a poll that shows most people disbelieve in evolution; it doesn’t add anything to say that all of his buddies also disbelieve, unless it’s to highlight his own isolation from credible sources. It’s nice that he notices his crowd is low-brow, but that doesn’t sound like a good endorsement of a presidential candidate. “He’s low of brow! He’s got average intelligence! He doesn’t understand science, just like you don’t! Vote Joe Slowcoach for President!”
The proper answer to the evolution question is, I don’t know. But MSNBC/Politico didn’t leave that option open to the candidates with this patronizing show-of-hands dictate.
“I don’t know” might well be the most accurate answer, but admitting ignorance doesn’t sound like good political strategy. A better answer would be “I’m not familiar with the evidence myself, but I’ll accept the conclusions of my scientific advisors, who, with the rest of the scientific community, are in agreement that evolution is the best explanation of human origins.”
I think the question is an excellent litmus test (I know that phrase seems to have acquired some negative meanings, but there’s nothing wrong with probing the competence of a candidate). The people who say “no, I don’t believe in evolution” are exposing both their ignorance and their obedience to false dogma, and ought to have been booed off the stage.
Unfortunately, as Hynes mentioned, the bozos are in the majority, and answering “no” probably doesn’t hurt their chances of being elected. That’s a solution to be deplored, not rationalized.
(via Alicublog, who practices the art of brevity)
Oh, I don’t know. It worked for Bush.
These are not people who are skeptical toward a scientific theory. These are not even people who even understand the scientific theory toward which they claim skepticism. These are people who have swallowed a septic tank of wrong and stupid arguments about evolution.
I wouldn’t mind a politician who said, “I don’t know much about the theory of evolution, but I can assure you I would look to reputable scientists when scientific questions arise on political issues.” Ditto, the big bang. Ditto, quantum mechanics. I would be surprised if any national politician could explain Bell’s theorem. I’m not looking for politicians who make statements of faith about theories they likely don’t well know. I don’t even demand that they are scientifically astute.
But they do need to be smart enough to reject the pseudo-scientific claptrap put out by the creationists. That doesn’t require science, just the ability to recognize dishonest argument. Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee all fail on that account.
I always wonder what it means when I see the results of a poll that includes something like “or that their evolution over time was “guided by a supreme being.” I guess this could also include a theistic evolutionary viewpoint that the Kenneth Millers and Francis Collins of the world may accept. If that is so then this answer gives an artificially high level of support to the anti evolutionary side. Try asking people ‘when did dinosaurs live on planet earth, millions of years ago or four thousand years ago?’ and see how they respond.
Ya this guy is all over the place. He doesn’t find the arguments for evolution convincing, but admits he’s part of a “low-brow” crowd. He has encountered someone who supports evolution with apparently at least some form of evidence, but he doesn’t “value their crticial thinking skills”. A majority of Americans do not believe (can we stop using that word?)in evolution, so he has an excuse to not be different?
If this were the 40s, 50s or 60s with the Democratic political climate in its heyday, and he was asked why he’s a Republican when so many others are Democrats, one thinks he’d give a completely different answer. He’d likely say something more along the lines of his party being oppressed in some way, or the majority being duped or ignorant with regard to politics and world events. He’ switch his tune wherever the wind was blowing. He’s obviously feeling his oats because of his prior prejudices, and because going to church is a fashionable thing politically.
But why he’s even compplaining is beyond me. Whether the question was asked in a biased fashion or not, 3 guys still got their churhc-sourced answers out. It was free air time for God amidst all them evilution-supportin’ charlatans!
“Humans and other living things existed only in their present form”
A deeper semantic examination of this statement might lead a reasonable person to agree: EVERY organism exists only in their “present form”, whether that contemporary “present” is 20 seconds ago or 20 million years ago. But the fact that humans, for example, were non-existent 20 million years ago certainly doesn’t mean our ancestors weren’t.
As for this fellow’s ability to discern “critical thinking”, methinks he doth protest too much. He doesn’t even seem to realize that Republican candidates can take great political advantage of an uneducated majority simply by rejecting evolution. So what’s his problem? So much for clear thinking.
My father-in-law works in a steel mill. I value his opinions on neuroscience and aerospace engineering.
My father-in-law works in a steel mill. I value his opinions on neuroscience and aerospace engineering.
“Humans and other living things existed only in their present form”
A deeper semantic examination of this statement might lead a reasonable person to agree: EVERY organism exists only in their “present form”, whether that contemporary “present” is 20 seconds ago or 20 million years ago. But the fact that humans, for example, were non-existent 20 million years ago certainly doesn’t mean our ancestors weren’t.
As for this fellow’s ability to discern “critical thinking”, methinks he doth protest too much. He doesn’t even seem to realize that Republican candidates can take great political advantage of an uneducated majority simply by rejecting evolution. So what’s his problem? So much for critical thinking.
“Humans and other living things existed only in their present form”
A deeper semantic examination of this statement might lead a reasonable person to agree: EVERY organism exists only in their “present form”, whether that contemporary “present” is 20 seconds ago or 20 million years ago. But the fact that humans, for example, were non-existent 20 million years ago certainly doesn’t mean our ancestors weren’t.
As for this fellow’s ability to discern “critical thinking”, methinks he doth protest too much. He doesn’t even seem to realize that Republican candidates can take great political advantage of an uneducated majority simply by rejecting evolution. So what’s his problem? So much for his own critical thinking.
“Humans and other living things existed only in their present form”
A deeper semantic examination of this statement might lead a reasonable person to agree: EVERY organism exists only in their “present form”, whether that contemporary “present” is 20 seconds ago or 20 million years ago. But the fact that humans, for example, were non-existent 20 million years ago certainly doesn’t mean our ancestors weren’t.
As for this fellow’s ability to discern “critical thinking”, methinks he doth protest too much. He doesn’t even seem to realize that Republican candidates can take great political advantage of an uneducated majority simply by rejecting evolution. So what’s his problem? So much for his own critical thinking, a trait he regrettably shares with many other religiously-conservative Republicans.
I’m starting to think it’s all really about tribalism. All these answers from these candidates are really an attempt to say, “I believe as you believe. I’m one of you.” They have nothing to do with evidence or science. It’s really only coincidence that the fundamentalist Christians have chosen this issue to be one of the defining issues of their movement.
You mean this Patrick Hynes?
“evolution skeptics” huh? They just can’t stop inverting the terminology!!!
First having confidence in the scientific community’s consensus on evolution is called “faith,” then scientific explanations for the origin of life are called “fairy tales,” now this.
I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and it’s natural that they would want people to be confused about which side is which considering whose arguments make sense. Their games with misusing terminology look like a deliberate attempt to mislead and confuse people and an admission that they can’t win the debate by stating their position clearly.
Irony: A man defending creationism describing himself and his fellow believers as “low-brow,” a term making reference to the physical similarities between humans and some apes. Just saying.
I believe in evolution, just like I believe in Canada.
Irony: A man defending creationism describing himself and his fellow believers as “low-brow,” a term making reference to the physical similarities between some humans and apes. Just saying.
“Litmus test” has negative connotations because it has come to mean selecting a candidate based on his political beliefs rather than his competence.
Oops. Server error runs amok. So sorry.
“evolution skeptics” huh? They just can’t stop inverting the terminology!!!
First having confidence in the scientific community’s consensus on evolution is called “faith,” then scientific explanations for the origin of life are called “fairy tales,” now this.
I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and it’s natural that they would want people to be confused about which side is which considering whose arguments make sense. Their games with misusing terminology look like a deliberate attempt to mislead and confuse people and an admission that they can’t win the debate by stating their position clearly.
“evolution skeptics” huh? They just can’t stop inverting the terminology!!!
First having confidence in the scientific community’s consensus on evolution is called “faith,” then scientific explanations for the origin of life are called “fairy tales,” now this.
I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and it’s natural that they would want people to be confused about which side is which considering whose arguments make sense. Their games with misusing terminology look like a deliberate attempt to mislead and confuse people and an admission that they can’t win the debate by stating their position clearly.
I am straining my brain to understand why such a question would not be appropriate (could have been better stated but that is not the point), and subsequently why the answers of the people that seek to control the most massive destructive power ever assembled by humankind would not be of high relevant interest to voters!!???!!!
I mean doesn’t their proclamations about this speak to their honesty (I doubt the ‘I do not believe’ seekers really do not think evolution is sound science frankly – they are just pandering ____s [fill in blank])?
Don’t these proclamations speak to their ability to discern the best explanation of things as they decide issued of vital importance?
Doesn’t it speak to their support of a modern progressive world view, to modern education, or a host of other relevant aspects?
And what the blazes does it mean when these seekers blather that “my faith is important in my decision-making”?? Does it mean as linguistically it means that that seeker will throw out good solid evidence and make decisions based on a vision, or a mystic, or an astrologer or some ancient manuscript, or the whim of the ignorant and intolerant back-waters, etc. etc.?
America wake the blazes up!!! This is the 21st Century – stop insisting that we go back to Victorian times, because before long – you will get your wish as others surpass us … and I will make a prediction.. NOT EVEN YOU WILL LIKE IT!!
I want a bumper sticker that says “Reality doesn’t care what you think.”
How are we supposed to respect HIS critical thinking skills when he thinks that a logical fallacy (appeal to popularity) actually legitimizes his postion?
Very sorry about the repeats!!!
It kept giving me an error message, so I assumed it had failed. Please feel free to delete the extras.
Hmmm . . . seems no other commenters noticed this part of Mr. Hynes’ nonsense: “White evangelical Christians, white mainline Protestants, and white Catholics believe the opposite.” Apparently, Mr. Hynes believes that only the opinions of caucasians and Xtians matter when it comes to evolution. I found that rather odd (and decidedly annoying), and reason enough to dismiss him entirely.
Well, obviously. If you’re not a white Christian (preferably Protestant and non-Mormon, but not absolutely necessary), then you’re not mainstream.
You only matter if you’re christian and white.
You guys should visit Hynes’ blog anklebitingpundits.com once in a while. I enjoy ridiculing his fundie views on a daily basis. You will get a regular dose of racism, sexism and homophobia. Of course, in his world I am considered a troll. I was banned from the forum, but everyone is still allowed to post on the front page. Try trolling for the entertainment value if nothing else.
Hynes is a paid consultant for the McCain presidential campaign. However, he is so inept, he can’t even convince his own ‘low brow’ crowd to support McCain.
Hynes considers himself an intellectual, so watch out.
You guys should visit Hynes’ blog anklebitingpundits.com once in a while. I enjoy ridiculing his fundie views on a daily basis. You will get a regular dose of racism, sexism and homophobia. Of course, in his world I am considered a troll. I was banned from the forum, but everyone is still allowed to post on the front page. Try trolling for the entertainment value if nothing else.
Hynes is a paid consultant for the McCain presidential campaign. However, he is so inept, he can’t even convince his own ‘low brow’ crowd to support McCain.
Hynes considers himself an intellectual, so watch out.
You guys should visit Hynes’ blog anklebitingpundits.com once in a while. I enjoy ridiculing his fundie views on a daily basis. You will get a regular dose of racism, sexism and homophobia. Of course, in his world I am considered a troll. I was banned from the forum, but everyone is still allowed to post on the front page. Try trolling for the entertainment value if nothing else.
Hynes is a paid consultant for the McCain presidential campaign. However, he is so inept, he can’t even convince his own ‘low brow’ crowd to support McCain.
Hynes considers himself an intellectual, so watch out.
Re # 17: “Litmus test” has negative connotations because it has come to mean selecting a candidate based on his political beliefs rather than his competence.
Two points need to be made.
#1 Accepting evolution does not entail any particular political agenda. Evolution is not a ‘political belief’, nor does acceptance of the fact of evolution constitute a belief system in and of itself.
#2 Denial of the fact of evolution speaks not only to the competence of would-be office holders, but also to their willingness to pander to the incompetent.
I therefore conclude that the question as posed was entirely appropriate; what was lacking was any context which would have forced the various GOP candidates to defend their understanding of science. We can no longer afford candidates who are not scientifically literate, or who pander to ignorance.
Respectfully submitted….SH
You guys should visit Hynes’ blog anklebitingpundits.com once in a while. I enjoy ridiculing his fundie views on a daily basis. You will get a regular dose of racism, sexism and homophobia. Of course, in his world I am considered a troll. I was banned from the forum, but everyone is still allowed to post on the front page. Try trolling for the entertainment value if nothing else.
Hynes is a paid consultant for the McCain presidential campaign. However, he is so inept, he can’t even convince his own ‘low brow’ crowd to support McCain.
Hynes considers himself an intellectual, so watch out.
I like how Hynes quotes himself in an appeal to authority. LOL.
I offer a posting tip in this time of trouble. Save yourselves some time and aggravation (and a few Pharyngulan column inches) by Refreshing the page once or twice, to verify that your post did NOT appear, before attempting a re-post. Most of the errors are spurrious, after-the-post errors in redisplaying the updated page, not errors in accepting the post. Most. Not all, but most.
Scott (#30) : Hear hear! I’m never going to excuse the Bush administration for its blatant undermining of the science advisory process in favor of its political agenda. (And that’s really just the tip of the iceburg, isn’t it?)
Well, my attempt to post on one thread kept giving me 403 errors and **not** posting it, so… I guess I am one of the lucky people getting real ones.
I recently had a discussion with someone who argued that not believing in evolution is not a sufficient reason to disqualify a Presidential candidate. As far as I know, that person accepts the scientific truth of evolution, but seems determined to not judge other people for holding clearly illogical and false views of the world.
That someone whose opinions I generally respect, if not always agree with, could argue for something that wrong makes me almost incoherently angry.
It didn’t help that as part of his argument, he tried to use a hypothetical that he knew and acknowledged was false.
I realized I was better off not continuing to argue about it, but I’ve spent most of a week continuing to rant about it in my head.
Kagehi,
Yup, I was “lucky” a couple of times too, but I was able to successfully post after one or two more tries. In my experience, the spurious posting errors far outnumber the genuine. But perhaps I was wrong to assume that my experience was typical… :-O
Regardless, I still refresh and check. I’m sure that doing so has saved me from posting quite a few duplicates.
O_O
There has to be something wrong with that heliocentricism statistic.
You guys should visit Hynes’ blog anklebitingpundits.com once in a while. I enjoy ridiculing his fundie views on a daily basis. You will get a regular dose of racism, sexism and homophobia. Of course, in his world I am considered a troll. I was banned from the forum, but everyone is still allowed to post on the front page. Try trolling for the entertainment value if nothing else.
Hynes is a paid consultant for the McCain presidential campaign. However, he is so inept, he can’t even convince his own ‘low brow’ crowd to support McCain.
Hynes considers himself an intellectual, so watch out.
Does anyone know if it would be worthwhile to visit Hynes’ blog, anklebitingpundits.com, once in a while?
Ah, I’m kidding, Dirk. Watch this message appear 27 times now.
<tease>Maybe Dirk is a Hynes sockpuppet, pimpin’ for hits?</tease>
My problem isn’t incredulity that 3 Republican candidates (say they) disbelieve in the ToE, I’m incredulous that it was so few. Recently Republicans have had a discernible anti- science/reality based view in the recent past. I think they are far too willing to politicize science in pursuit of an ideological agenda. Just for the record, I’m not a Democrat (officially, though I often wind up voting that way out of the “Lesser of two Evils” paradigm.) Could some people from the “Reality Based Community” give me an alternative? Please? The thought of people in power seeking actual answers to problems without relying on ideology makes me salivate.
Interested PZ? President Meyers has a nice ring to it, eh? You could have a squid tank in the Oval Office and everything.
Think about it.
You guys should visit Hynes’ blog anklebitingpundits.com once in a while. I enjoy ridiculing his fundie views on a daily basis. You will get a regular dose of racism, sexism and homophobia. Of course, in his world I am considered a troll. I was banned from the forum, but everyone is still allowed to post on the front page. Try trolling for the entertainment value if nothing else.
Hynes is a paid consultant for the McCain presidential campaign. However, he is so inept, he can’t even convince his own ‘low brow’ crowd to support McCain.
Hynes considers himself an intellectual, so watch out.
Hmm.. one of the comments on that blog (#54 unless it ‘disappears’) looks rather familiar…
You guys should visit Hynes’ blog anklebitingpundits dot com once in a while. I enjoy ridiculing his fundie views on a daily basis. You will get a regular dose of racism, sexism and homophobia. Of course, in his world I am considered a troll. I was banned from the forum, but everyone is still allowed to post on the front page. Try trolling for the entertainment value if nothing else.
Hynes is a paid consultant for the McCain presidential campaign. However, he is so inept, he can’t even convince his own ‘low brow’ crowd to support McCain.
Hynes considers himself an intellectual, so watch out.
Sorry. I don’t know why this was posted so many times. Please delete the multiple posts. I kept getting error messages and thought it wasn’t going thru.
It must be gratifying that creationism polls so well. So basically Hynes’ plan is to put truth up for a vote. Wonderful. Reminds me of the Monty Python bit where the debate over the existence of god is decided by a wrestling match.
#s 8, 9, 10; 14, 16; 19, 20; 28, 29, 30, 32, 40, 44, 46:
Is it a coincidence, or somehow connected to the fact that at least half a dozen emails I got last night arrived twice? Has the internet developed a stutter? I know some of you multiple posters are blaming yourselves for clicking ‘post’ more than once after getting error messages, but isn’t it more likely your brains and behaviour are being controlled by the tentacles / noodly appendages of a not-necessarily-malign Redesigner that has freshly evolved from the primordial electronic slime in which we wallow? These multiple copies are now free to evolve divergently, increasing the total information content even more than you did by stringing the first draft together at random.
So if scientific theories have to be populist-based, does that mean that American life-forms were created and European ones evolved?
I’m just wondering if these same guys who think a candidate’s belief in creationism is irrelevant to his potential fitness as president are also the same ones who think a candidate’s belief in Allah or whatever Joseph Smith made up or nothing at all are highly relevant to his potential fitness as president? Any Venn Diagrams out there?