USA Today had an interesting item on a topic that has generated a surprising amount of attention in two separate Republican presidential debates: modern biology.
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, have been explaining their positions ever since they and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo first indicated in a May 3 debate that they do not believe in evolution. Their religious views, they say, are compatible with science.
“I think science is marvelous and wonderful, and I enjoy the benefit of it every day,” Huckabee told reporters Wednesday at a lunch. He said he embraces Scripture, but “to me, it’s not a conflict with science.” […]
Democratic strategist Mark Mellman, Kerry’s 2004 pollster who is not affiliated with a current candidate, said they make their party look like “a front for the Flat Earth Society.”
The image could cause serious damage with “swing voters who are culturally progressive,” Mellman said — “not because evolution is their most important issue but because it says something significant about their cultural orientation. They aren’t interested in rational scientific explanation and discourse.”
That last point seems like the key to the discussion over the last few weeks. For a presidential candidate, in 2007, to concede disbelief in the cornerstone of modern biology doesn’t reflect well on their understanding of facts and evidence. If they reject the overwhelming proof on evolutionary biology, how will they deal with evidence of global warming? Or stem-cell research? Or a public health emergency? Or any public policy that deals with science?
On Tuesday, when Wolf Blitzer raised the subject, Mike Huckabee said, “It’s interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president. I’m not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I’m asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States.” Which is why I think Mellman was right about the underlying point. Do the candidates care about reason?
Oddly enough, though the Republican candidates seem a little annoyed by the interest, both the reality-based community and their rivals on the right seem to be interested in the responses.
“Most of us don’t think that we’re just apes with trousers,” said Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative who ran for president in 2000. He said Huckabee and Brownback have been “refreshing” on the subject. He also said that, while a president doesn’t have direct influence on curriculum, the discussion is “an interesting marker on worldviews.”
Lawrence Krauss, a scientist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said it is a warning flag. He said a president “who denies something at the basis of modern biology” would not be a credible leader on education or economic growth driven by biotechnology, would hobble scientific research and would lack international stature.
My biggest concern, of course, is that Mellman is wrong about the creationists making the GOP look like “a front for the Flat Earth Society.” The latest polls are discouraging.
Majorities of Americans in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say evolution and creationism are both likely explanations for life on Earth — underscoring the complexities of an issue that has put Republican presidential candidates on the spot in recent weeks.
Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true. More than half, 53%, said evolution, the idea that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, is definitely or probably true. All told, 25% say that both creationism and evolution are definitely or probably true.
I tried to wrap my head around these results, hoping to make heads of tails of public opinion, but quickly gave up.
I like to think Mellman is right, and “swing voters who are culturally progressive” would look askance at a candidate who still doesn’t believe in evolution, but those polls give me pause.