An updated version of Science, Education, and Creationism, a book from the National Academy of Sciences, is available for free download in pdf format here. An eight page summary is also available for download.
An updated version of Science, Education, and Creationism, a book from the National Academy of Sciences, is available for free download in pdf format here. An eight page summary is also available for download.
Mike Huckabee might have won in Iowa, and perhaps won tonight’s debate on style, but we also must remember that the US is “doomed” should he be elected. Here is the scientific basis for this warning:
A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.
“The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming,” University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
“I would worry that a president who didn’t believe in the evolution arguments wouldn’t believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin,” added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of “Science, Evolution and Creationism.”
The panelists at the book launched spoke out against the teaching of creationism in science classes:
Omenn and the other panel members at the book launch said categorically that creationism should be banned from science classrooms.
“Scientific inquiry is not about accepting on faith a statement or scriptural passage. It’s about exploring nature, so there really is not any place in the science classroom for creationism or intelligent design creationism,” said Omenn.
“We don’t teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine,” said Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine.
“We must understand the difference between what is and is not science. We must not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution,” he said.
“Holding deep religious beliefs is not incompatible with believing in evolution,” Omenn said.
“But that’s different to saying the two can be taught together in science class, because religion and science are two different ways of knowing about the world. They might not be incompatible but they don’t overlap each other’s spheres.
“Science class should not contain religious attitudes,” he added.
In addition to Mike Huckabee, one other current candidate, Ron Paul, has denied evolution.
I wasn’t particularly impressed with any of the Republican candidates, but I think I have to give the win in the Republican debate to Mike Huckabee primarily for style as opposed to substance. He manages to both carry on the failed policies of George Bush while still claiming, “I’m not running for George Bush’s third term.” He also showed he’s accustomed to beating Mitt Romney, who was the major target of the debate:
ROMNEY: “Don’t mischaracterize my position.”
HUCKABEE: “Which one?”
Naturally they were terrible on foreign policy, with all but Paul supporting the greatest foreign policy blunder in our history. They were also annoying on health care as they misrepresent the Democratic policies as socialized medicine. This is the most absurd coming from Mitt Romney considering how similar the Democratic proposals are to his Massachusetts program. In terms of health care, the Democrats should hope that they run against John McCain. His proposals for health care reimbursement are basically an extension of HMO concepts of capitation. In a battle between fake charges of socialized medicine versus the very real problems of the HMO model which McCain has adopted, many voters who have experienced HMO’s are likely to vote Democratic.
Huckabee might be wrong on the issues, but he does do the best job of the Republicans of sounding sane. Democrats who see him as an easy opponent are making the same mistake that Jimmy Carter did in being excited about Ronald Reagan being the opponent. Democrats are in a much better position this year and will probably beat any Republican in the general election, but Huckabee can put up a good fight if he wins the nomination. Mark Steyn’s column from earlier today sums up Huckabee’s strengths, even if over-estimating his chances of actually winning:
As for Huckabee, the thinking on the right is that the mainstream media are boosting him up because he’s the Republican who’ll be easiest to beat. It’s undoubtedly true that they see him as the designated pushover, but in that they’re wrong. If Iowa’s choice becomes the nation’s, and it’s Huckabee vs. Obama this November, I’d bet on Huck.
As governor, as preacher and even as disc jockey, he’s spent his life in professions that depend on connecting with an audience, and he’s very good at it. His gag on “The Tonight Show” – “People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off” – had a kind of brilliance: True, it is cornball at one level (imagine John Edwards doing it with all his smarmy sanctimoniousness) but it also devastatingly cuts to the core of the difference between him and Mitt Romney. It’s a disc-jockey line: the morning man on the radio is a guy doing a tricky job – he’s a celebrity trying to pass himself off as a regular joe – which is pretty much what the presidential candidate has to do, too. Huckabee’s good at that.
I don’t know whether the Jay Leno shtick was written for him by a professional, but, if so, by the time it came out of his mouth it sounded like him. When Huck’s campaign honcho, Ed Rollins, revealed the other day that he wanted to punch Romney in the teeth, Mitt had a good comeback: “I have just one thing to say to Mr. Rollins,” he began. “Please, don’t touch the hair.” Funny line – but it sounds like a line, like something written by a professional and then put in his mouth.
This is the Huckabee advantage. On stage, he’s quick-witted and thinks on his feet. He’s not paralyzed by consultants and trimmers and triangulators. Put him in a presidential debate, and he’ll have sharper ripostes and funnier throwaways and more plausible self-deprecating quips than anyone on the other side. He’ll be a great campaigner. The problems begin when he stops campaigning and starts governing.
The full transcript of the debate is here.