Ronald Bailey, Reason’s science correspondent, took on an interesting project this week: documenting where every major-party presidential candidate stands on evolutionary biology.
Oddly enough, this has taken on far more political significance this election cycle than the last two. It started back in May, in one of the more memorable debate moments of the year, when John McCain was asked a straightforward question: “Do you believe in evolution?”
It’s the 21st century and McCain is an educated man, so it should have been an easy one, but he’s a Republican, and he needs to appeal to a far-right base that has little use for modern science — so he hesitated. After a pregnant pause, McCain said, “Yes.”
The Politico’s Jim VandeHei opened it up to the stage: “I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?” The camera didn’t show the 10 candidates for very long, but three would-be presidents raised their hand: Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. Later, Ron Paul acknowledged that he doesn’t “accept” modern biology, either.
Take a look at Bailey’s piece for the details, but here’s a rough tale of the tape:
* Mike Huckabee — Rejects evolutionary biology, but says it shouldn’t matter.
* John McCain — Has rejected, embraced, and rejected again intelligent-design creationism.
* Mitt Romney — Believes in evolution. “In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution.”
* Rudy Giuliani — Refuses to say and “successfully discouraged key advisors from speaking to Science about specific issues.”
* Duncan Hunter — Told the Creation Studies Institute that he would “support and encourage a more open approach to education in the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution.”
* Ron Paul — Rejects biological evolution as “a theory.”
* Fred Thompson — Has apparently never said publicly either way.
And then, there are the Dems.
* Hillary Clinton — Believes in evolution.
* John Edwards — Believes in evolution.
* Barack Obama — Hasn’t been quoted on modern biology, but rejects intelligent-design creationism.
* Dennis Kucinich — Hasn’t been quoted on the subject.
* Mike Gravel — Has been rather emphatic on the subject. “My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, they’ve got a mental problem. We can’t afford the psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as I’m concerned.”
The next question, of course, is whether this matters, given that the president, no matter who he or she is, has practically no control or influence over what’s taught in the nation’s schools. I’ve argued, repeatedly, that this matters a great deal, because it speaks to how earnestly a person takes evidence and reason, which in turn tells the nation quite a bit about how this person would make decisions in the Oval Office.
Bailey added, “Since science and technology policy issues are only going to become more important as the 21st century unfolds, we should all care how scientific knowledge informs a president’s leadership.”
I was also fond of Steve Verdon’s take.
One of the things that never ceases to amaze me about those who support creationism, intelligent design and oppose the concept of evolution is that they are amazing hypocrites. They will say things like, “Evolution is only a theory.” No. This. Is. Wrong. Evolution — i.e. that organisms change at a genetic level — is an observed fact. The theory man has constructed to explain the myriad of facts that fall under the broad umbrella of evolution is “just a theory”. However, this applies to other real phenomena such as gravity. Take a penny and drop it. It falls to the floor. It always falls to the floor. Of all the billions and billions of times people have dropped pennies (hear on earth) there is not one instance where the penny has not fallen to the floor.
Do we fully understand gravity and how it works? No. Is there a single theory of gravity? No. Are there “gaps” in the theory? Yes. So why don’t all these people who fight so vigorously against evolution fight just as vigorously against gravity? My guess is because they know that people will regard them as irrational kooks who really and truly are anti-science. But evolution and evolutionary theory…why that is hard to understand without lots of set-up costs. So evolution is a “soft target”. But the exact same arguments that the Creos use against evolutionary theory can be leveled against any and all scientific theories. The bottom line is that these people are either ignorant or willfully obtuse. In either way, I don’t see it as a good thing in a candidate for any office including dog catcher.
Well, that settles that.