Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)

[NeoDevin]

but yet will call evolution a fact (instead of a well-tested theory). Both inferences are incorrect when using the same definition of 'scientific theory.'

Evolution is both a fact (species change over time) and a theory (natural selection/survival of the fittest). The observed changes are facts, the proposed mechanisms are theories.

if they state one belief (christian) then state an opposing belief (evolution). This seems like a few very panderous statements, and inconsistent.

CAC1001 presented this false dichotomy before, and I already addressed it. Many people believe in various combinations of creation and evolution.

It can be a deistic approach, where the creator sets the laws of physics and let's the universe run like an infinitely complex Rube-Goldberg contraption, until some goal (the creation of humans) is reached.

It can be theistic evolution, where the creator starts the ball rolling, and tweaks things as it goes, so that a target (the creation of humans) is reached.

There is a dichotomy between biblical literalism and evolution, but fortunately not every Christian is a literalist.

 

[NeoDevin]

The problem daveb, is how else can you respond to such a colorful (""aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin") post?

You could try pointing out some potential Republican candidates that are competent...

Maybe you could actually disagree with the OP (you know, staying on topic), and point out why the anti-science mentality isn't a problem with the Republican party (assuming you don't think it is).

This thread is about the anti-science stance of the Republican party (and their voters), and Rick Perry in particular. The fact that the only defenses we've seen so far are "it doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect their decisions" and "but Dems are worse!11eleventy1one" is rather telling. It suggests to me that this problem is endemic in the Republican party, and their supporters (the ones here at least) know it.

Set aside any problems with the Democratic party (feel free to start a new thread about them). Set aside the impact of anti-science mentality on policy decisions (for now at least). Do you (general 'you' meaning Republican supporters, not restricted to WhoWee) agree or disagree that the Republican party has a tendency to nominate science-illiterate candidates, and that the Republican supporters tend to vote preferentially for science-illiterate/anti-science candidates?

 

[WhoWee]

You could try pointing out some potential Republican candidates that are competent...

Maybe you could actually disagree with the OP (you know, staying on topic), and point out why the anti-science mentality isn't a problem with the Republican party (assuming you don't think it is).

This thread is about the anti-science stance of the Republican party (and their voters), and Rick Perry in particular.

First, why are Christian candidates incompetent? Next, when was it established the entire Republican Party has an "anti-science stance" - please support.

 

[NeoDevin]

First, why are Christian candidates incompetent?

Now you're just making things up. I never claimed anything to that effect.

Next, when was it established the entire Republican Party has an "anti-science stance" - please support.

Republican candidates:

Believe in evolution:
Jon Huntsman
Mitt Romney (believes in "guided evolution", but I put him here to give you the benefit of the doubt)

Disbelieve evolution:
Rick Perry
Michelle Bachmann
Rick Santorum
Ron Paul

No comment/on the fence:
Newt Gingrich
Herman Cain

Still trying to find the views of other candidates, will update when I find them.
Edit: Haven't been able to find explicit views from any of the other candidates, and I don't have time to keep looking. I think this covers all the significant declared candidates at the moment, however.

 

[MarcoD]

How can rationality say something is wrong with a moral implication? (replace steal with rape, kill, etc) I can steal, rationality tells me that. I can do it over again. I can get caught and go to jail for stealing, rationality tells me that. In general, people are deterred from stealing when the punishment is severe enough, rationality tells me that. But why do I want to reduce stealing? Rationality has a hard time telling me that, because it's not testable. My point isn't that rationality is flawed, but that it can't neccessarilly be used in 100% of circumstances. Even if using some Platonic or Legalist reasoning for a moral dilemma, where did their reasoning come from?

Rationality is not a belief system. You simplified beyond credibility here.

I am, what some people would call, an 'emphatic' humanist. (Don't read too much into the emphatic part, it's just to distinguish from Christian or atheist humanism, which are somewhat different, or even incompatible belief systems.) Humanism is a belief system, it gives me moral guidance, though sometimes different than others.

Often, the religious -often monotheistic- stance, [STRIKE]and you seem to subscribe to that,[/STRIKE] is that religion has the moral monopoly on ethical systems. It doesn't. For me, it is incomprehensible why people think that ethics can be derived from books written in pre-medieval times.

To each his own.

EDIT: I should have said, rationality isn't an ethical/belief system, but can be employed to arrive at one. To me, that means I arrive at some form of humanism.

 

[Evo]

Even with all of that, however, what do these test scores have to do with ID?

No one said they were.

 

[D H]

You could try pointing out some potential Republican candidates that are competent...

First, why are Christian candidates incompetent?

So, WhoWee, are you saying that there are no competent Christian Republican candidates out there? It sure looks that way to me! NeoDevin did not say that the entire pack of Republican candidates are incompetent. He didn't even drag religion into it. He merely challenged supporters to point out some Republican candidates who are competent. So why don't you do that: Name names and say what they have accomplished.

 

[WhoWee]

Now you're just making things up. I never claimed anything to that effect.



Republican candidates:

Believe in evolution:
Jon Huntsman
Mitt Romney (believes in "guided evolution", but I put him here to give you the benefit of the doubt)

Disbelieve evolution:
Rick Perry
Michelle Bachmann
Rick Santorum
Ron Paul

No comment/on the fence:
Newt Gingrich
Herman Cain

Still trying to find the views of other candidates, will update when I find them.
Edit: Haven't been able to find explicit views from any of the other candidates, and I don't have time to keep looking. I think this covers all the significant declared candidates at the moment, however.

Did I make up your statement?
"You could try pointing out some potential Republican candidates that are competent..."/I]

 

[Evo]

That, is one of the funniest statistics I have seen in a long time. So what's with the other 48%? Are they Catholic because of the bake sales? I don't get it. That would be like being a Republican, and having only Bachmann and Palin as choices.

You can be born Catholic, so idenitfy as a Catholic when asked what your religion is, but that doesn't mean that you attend Mass or aren't agnostic. I was born Roman Catholic, will tell people I'm catholic, but I am also an atheist. Go figure.

 

[WhoWee]

So, WhoWee, are you saying that there are no competent Christian Republican candidates out there? It sure looks that way to me! NeoDevin did not say that the entire pack of Republican candidates are incompetent. He didn't even drag religion into it. He merely challenged supporters to point out some Republican candidates who are competent. So why don't you do that: Name names and say what they have accomplished.

I asked "First, why are Christian candidates incompetent?"

Does a strict belief in evolution - or a strict belief there is no God - automatically make a candidate competent to govern?

As for his specific comment that "Maybe you could actually disagree with the OP (you know, staying on topic), and point out why the anti-science mentality isn't a problem with the Republican party (assuming you don't think it is).

This thread is about the anti-science stance of the Republican party (and their voters), and Rick Perry in particular. The fact that the only defenses we've seen so far are "it doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect their decisions" and "but Dems are worse!11eleventy1one" is rather telling. It suggests to me that this problem is endemic in the Republican party, and their supporters (the ones here at least) know it." my bold

When was it ever established as fact that Republicans (or Christians) are "anti-science" - evolution is but a single subject.

 

[D H]

Does a strict belief in evolution - or a strict belief there is no God - automatically make a candidate competent to govern?

Of course not. Then again, nobody has said that.

When was it ever established as fact that Republicans (or Christians) are "anti-science" - evolution is but a single subject.

Evolution is a fact, a fact has been in the public arena for over a century. Denying evolution is, to me, denying reality. It is not a single subject. It is a bellwether. To me a candidate who denies evolution means that the candidate is so completely out of touch with reality, so drawn into a fundamentalist (not Christian! Being Christian does not mean you have to deny evolution) ideology that I simply cannot trust that candidate will do the right thing for our country.

Am I a left wing wacko for saying this? No. I have been voting Republican, oftentimes straight Republican, since Reagan's second term. But probably not in 2012.

 

[WhoWee]

Of course not. Then again, nobody has said that.


Evolution is a fact, a fact has been in the public arena for over a century. Denying evolution is, to me, denying reality. It is not a single subject. It is a bellwether. To me a candidate who denies evolution means that the candidate is so completely out of touch with reality, so drawn into a fundamentalist (not Christian! Being Christian does not mean you have to deny evolution) ideology that I simply cannot trust that candidate will do the right thing for our country.

Am I a left wing wacko for saying this? No. I have been voting Republican, oftentimes straight Republican, since Reagan's second term. But probably not in 2012.

Why do you think anyone except Romney will be the Republican candidate?

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with WhoWee and see a host of problems with this thread:

1. The starting premise of the thread, "...the anti-science stance of the Republican Party (and their voters)" is an improper assumption of a fact (facts), which must be proven if, indeed it can be a fact, but which more likely is simply an opinion-type statement and inherrently unprovable.

2. For that premise, it is simply incorrect to assume that a single benchmark issue - particularly one with virtually no relevance or impact on its own - will predict a candidate's scientific competency. I have experience with scientifically-minded religious people who will accept science right up until it butts-heads with religion and then reject the science out of hand. The breadth of the issues with science thus depends on the breadth of the religious views. The creation story just happens to be one of the most prominent issues and may well be one of the only issues for which a religious candidate might reject science on religious grounds.

3. You cannot extrapolate from the candidates to the voters if the voters aren't being presented with prominent candiates of a different belief system to vote for.

4. You cannot single-out the Republicans when the choice isn't between the Republicans and nothing, but rather between the Republicans and the Democrats. The issues some Republican candidates have with science are disturbing to me, but they have to be weighed on their own importance and against my issues with Democratic candidates. Anything less and I'm not thinking through my choices. Attempts to create a single benchmark, dealbreaker issue (from a non-issue, at that!) from which to disqualify Republican candidates are just weak and simpleminded attempts to back Republicans into a corner made of tissue-paper. Most candidates, from all sides, have issues for which they act stupidly and if we disqualified for those issues, we'd have no candidates left to vote for. This sounds, to me, similar to the attempts to use abortion as a benchmark issue in the '90s, when there was no abortion issue to be decided in an election! It's a liberal smokescreen, designed to distract votors from thinking about issues that actually matter.

 

[Evo]

Evolution is a fact, a fact has been in the public arena for over a century. Denying evolution is, to me, denying reality. It is not a single subject. It is a bellwether. To me a candidate who denies evolution means that the candidate is so completely out of touch with reality, so drawn into a fundamentalist (not Christian! Being Christian does not mean you have to deny evolution) ideology that I simply cannot trust that candidate will do the right thing for our country.

That is also my concern, how can they make a choice that goes against their beliefs (when going against their beliefs is for the greater good) when they say that their beliefs are from *god*?

I have been voting Republican, oftentimes straight Republican, since Reagan's second term. But probably not in 2012.

I'm stunned by the list of Republican hopefuls for 2012. What happened? There isn't much time left for a mainstream candidate to throw their hat in.

 

[Newai]

...
Most candidates, from all sides, have issues for which they act stupidly and if we disqualified for those issues, we'd have no candidates left to vote for.

...

I'm pretty sure if we disqualified all candidates of either party for sloppy science comprehension, we'd be seeing other candidates that could easily be qualified to run our country.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm stunned by the list of Republican hopefuls for 2012. What happened? There isn't much time left for a mainstream candidate to throw their hat in.

How is Romney not mainstream?

 

[russ_watters]

Evolution is a fact, a fact has been in the public arena for over a century. Denying evolution is, to me, denying reality. It is not a single subject. It is a bellwether. To me a candidate who denies evolution means that the candidate is so completely out of touch with reality, so drawn into a fundamentalist (not Christian! Being Christian does not mean you have to deny evolution) ideology that I simply cannot trust that candidate will do the right thing for our country.

I think that stance would be reasonable only if you knew nothing else about a candidate. Thats what a bellwether is, right? But today, the most important issues are economic, so if a candidate has an economic policy that I agree with, then his belief in creation has failed to accurately predict his [in]competency.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm pretty sure if we disqualified all candidates of either party for sloppy science comprehension, we'd be seeing other candidates that could easily be qualified to run our country.

I wish we actually had the power to do that.

 

[russ_watters]

That is also my concern, how can they make a choice that goes against their beliefs (when going against their beliefs is for the greater good) when they say that their beliefs are from *god*?

Does God want Romney to balance the budget? Does his belief in creation give us any insight?

 

[NeoDevin]

1. The starting premise of the thread, "...the anti-science stance of the Republican Party (and their voters)" is an improper assumption of a fact (facts), which must be proven if, indeed it can be a fact, but which more likely is simply an opinion-type statement and inherrently unprovable.

This has been supported with numerous examples up-thread already.

For more evidence that republicans, as a group, deny reality:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-most-republicans-doubt-evolution-27915/"

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/157167-poll-plurality-of-republicans-say-obama-born-outside-us" (I couldn't find anything since the release of the long form birth certificate. But if the short form didn't change their minds, why would the long form?)

2. For that premise, it is simply incorrect to assume that a single benchmark issue - particularly one with virtually no relevance or impact on its own - will predict a candidate's scientific competency. I have experience with scientifically-minded religious people who will accept science right up until it butts-heads with religion and then reject the science out of hand. The breadth of the issues with science thus depends on the breadth of the religious views. The creation story just happens to be one of the most prominent issues and may well be one of the only issues for which a religious candidate might reject science on religious grounds.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread:

Young Earth creationism alone requires denial of: biology, geology, archaeology, paleontology, chemistry, physics and cosmology (and a whole lot of subtopics in each).

Like it or not, denial of evolution requires rejecting the vast majority of modern science.

3. You cannot extrapolate from the candidates to the voters if the voters aren't being presented with prominent candiates of a different belief system to vote for.

Aside from the additional links above, the question then becomes why they aren't being presented with prominent candidates of a 'different (reality based?) belief system'?

4. You cannot single-out the Republicans when the choice isn't between the Republicans and nothing, but rather between the Republicans and the Democrats. The issues some Republican candidates have with science are disturbing to me, but they have to be weighed on their own importance and against my issues with Democratic candidates. Anything less and I'm not thinking through my choices. Attempts to create a single benchmark, dealbreaker issue (from a non-issue, at that!) from which to disqualify Republican candidates are just weak and simpleminded attempts to back Republicans into a corner made of tissue-paper. Most candidates, from all sides, have issues for which they act stupidly and if we disqualified for those issues, we'd have no candidates left to vote for. This sounds, to me, similar to the attempts to use abortion as a benchmark issue in the '90s, when there was no abortion issue to be decided in an election! It's a liberal smokescreen, designed to distract votors from thinking about issues that actually matter.

We can't single out a single issue when making our complete decision, but we can single out a single issue for discussion in this thread. If you want to discuss other issues, start a new thread.

 

[NeoDevin]

I wish we actually had the power to do that.

See, we can agree on something!

 

[Evo]

How is Romney not mainstream?

He's more mainstream than the others, but with all of his flip flops, I don't know who he is or what he really believes.

 

[Evo]

Does God want Romney to balance the budget? Does his belief in creation give us any insight?

Does he talk to god too? I thought he's claimed that he's not going to let his religion affect his decisions.

Then he flipped flopped on abortion, stem cell research, etc... to come inline with his beliefs. So, who knows.

 

[WhoWee]

He's more mainstream than the others, but with all of his flip flops, I don't know who he is or what he really believes.

I see Romney as being comparable to Bill Clinton in his second term - the center to center/right Clinton that agreed to welfare reform.

 

[Evo]

I see Romney as being comparable to Bill Clinton in his second term - the center to center/right Clinton that agreed to welfare reform.

Clinton didn't oppose women's rights nor did he wish to limit stem cell research, IIRC.

Perhaps we should start a thread on him, on whether he's a viable candidate. It seems the "Christians" don't like him because he's Morman, the middle and more liberal people disagree with his "moral" issues.

 

[WhoWee]

Clinton didn't oppose women's rights nor did he wish to limit stem cell research, IIRC.

Perhaps we should start a thread on him, on whether he's a viable candidate. It seems the "Christians" don't like him because he's Morman, the middle and more liberal people disagree with his "moral" issues.

Clinton certainly embraced women - Hillary might've been the friend of women's rights?

I don't think the moderate Dems, Independents, or moderate Repubs care that he's a Mormon.

 

[Evo]

Clinton certainly embraced women - Hillary might've been the friend of women's rights?

I don't think the moderate Dems, Independents, or moderate Repubs care that he's a Mormon.

I'll stick my neck out and say, IMO, he's the only viable Republican candidate, but he'll need to de-flop to get my interest. Right now I can't honestly say who I would back.

When I google Romney, all I see is how he's not considered viable. That's a shame.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

 

[turbo]

When I google Romney, all I see is how he's not considered viable. That's a shame.

Personally, I don't think that he is a viable candidate. I don't see how he can possibly carry the bible-belt, and any GOP candidate is going to need the southern right to prevail in the general election. GOP strategists are going to play this up, IMO, in the run-up to the primaries, though they are unlikely to be honest about why they want to marginalize Romney.

 

[mheslep]

I agree with Russ's first point, that the premise "the anti-science stance of the Republican Party (and their voters)" is unsupported in this thread, as of Russ's post. NeoDevin's only relevant reference was Dawkin's statement, and Evo's four relevant references (Forbes, NYT, HuffPo) were about Perry and Bachman.

Furthermore, an examination that purports to determine who or who is not denying reality by only posting surveys of Republicans is at best myopic. As for digging up Birther polls (and reporting only one side of them), recall that nearly a http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance" of Democrats believed former Pres Bush had a hand in 911. As for the adherence to science based policy, see the current administration in i) its utterly politicized handling of nuclear waste and ii) the intentional omission of expert recommendations on the Gulf drilling ban.

 

[Gokul43201]

A purely rational individual would not value human life as highly as we do now.

I call BS on this. Do you have something to support this assertion?

I believe that's a significant religious involvement in our society (specifically a Christian belief). We'd put far more people to death for relatively insignificant crimes if the regard for human life wasn't there.

This is an argument against your assertion above, since it turns out that more religious conservative organizations support putting people to death than more liberal religious groups or non-religious groups.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/religion-and-death-penalty#state

I just don't see the doom/gloom that many in this thread see with respect to having a fundamentalist Christian president. We have plenty of checks, balances, and failsafes in place to prevent the take over of government in the manner predicted here (like they'd even try anyhow). I'd wager that even some of the 'extreme!' fundamentalist Christians that may be on the ticket in 2012 don't hold a candle in their beliefs to some past presidents. Electing them President doesn't instantly (or even in time) make this country a 'christian-law country' with crosses in every school and a mandatory prayer every morning like some are trying to make it seem.

I agree, for the most part. But I'd still be very nervous about taking a chance on electing someone who doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm

Nearly all religious groups are officially abolitionist with respect to the death penalty.

Nope. The larger and more conservative groups (Evangelists, Southern Baptists, etc.) support [STRIKE]abortion[/STRIKE] (oops!) the death penalty; the more liberal groups (Unitarians, Episcopalians, etc.) do not.

The better question is, can a candidate make an informed policy decision, given physical realities.

Agreed. Though one has to be nervous about the thought that a President might reject a physical reality that clashes with his faith. Or has Perry told us how old he thinks the Earth is?

I agree with Russ's first point, that the premise "the anti-science stance of the Republican Party (and their voters)" is unsupported in this thread, as of Russ's post. NeoDevin's only relevant reference was Dawkin's statement, and Evo's four relevant references (Forbes, NYT, HuffPo) were about Perry and Bachman.

BobG mentioned the 2007 debate where Tancredo, Brownback, etc. disavowed belief in evolution. Santorum does too. While the premise may not have been well-supported until later in the thread, the sentiment is hardly something new. After all, even John Huntsman's campaign adviser recently said: “We’re not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party”.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...imate-change/2011/08/17/gIQAgawNLJ_story.html

But I agree that the premise demands a lot more scrutiny.

Furthermore, an examination that purports to determine who or who is not denying reality by only posting surveys of Republicans is at best myopic.

Are we looking at different posts? I clearly see comparisons of Republicans with Democrats and Independents.

 

[Evo]

Nope. The larger and more conservative groups (Evangelists, Southern Baptists, etc.) support abortion; the more liberal groups (Unitarians, Episcopalians, etc.) do not.

Did you get that backwards?

 

[Gokul43201]

Did you get that backwards?

Eek! I meant the death penalty. Fixing now.

 

[Evo]

Eek! I meant the death penalty. Fixing now.

LOL, I know I don't keep up with politics, but I was pretty sure I would have read about that!

 

[russ_watters]

This has been supported with numerous examples up-thread already.

No, it hasn't:

For more evidence that republicans, as a group, deny reality:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-most-republicans-doubt-evolution-27915/"

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/157167-poll-plurality-of-republicans-say-obama-born-outside-us" (I couldn't find anything since the release of the long form birth certificate. But if the short form didn't change their minds, why would the long form?)

Like it or not, denial of evolution requires rejecting the vast majority of modern science.

I agree with the facts of the statistics, but extending that to mean that those people are anti-science in general is a conclusion that you are drawing - it is not a fact. And it is a flawed conclusion because you are ignoring at least two other possibilities, that I'm sure most of us have witnessed in this very forum:

1. Ignorance. You can't be anti-something that you don't know about. If a person comes here and reads off the crackpot anti-evolution arguments list, sure, they are anti-science in general. But if someone doesn't know about the evidence for evolution in geology, a belief in creationism is not automatically a rejection of geology.

2. Cognitive dissonance. People hold contradictory views, in particular when it comes to religion, so it is entirely possible (and again, I've seen it here) for a person to reject the science of one topic where it interferes with religion, but accept it in another instance where it doesn't.

Aside from the additional links above, the question then becomes why they aren't being presented with prominent candidates of a 'different (reality based?) belief system'?

Connotation aside, the reason we get the candidates we get are really two-fold:

1. There is a lot of campaign money in Christian fundamentalism.
2. Political campaigns are popularity contests and notoriety=popularity, regardless of if people are known in a positive way. So people like Palin and Bachman can perform for the media, the media eats it up and broadcasts it, and people remember their names when asked about them in polls. It's sad, but it's reality.

We can't single out a single issue when making our complete decision, but we can single out a single issue for discussion in this thread. If you want to discuss other issues, start a new thread.

Understood - I just wanted to make sure people don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the discussion in this thread is constrained to one issue, it is actually reasonable to make a decision based on that one issue - and an issue that in and of itself has essentially no significance. That's a silly game people seemed to be playing here.