Republicans Believe Obama Is A Muslim And Doubt Evolution

As seen in the previous post, Rick Santorum is mind-numbingly ignorant. The same can be said about Republicans in Mississippi and Alabama (as well as other states not included in this poll). David Weigel passes on these findings from Public Policy Polling:

Mississippi:

Screen shot 2012-03-12 at 8.29.31 AM

Alabama:

Screen shot 2012-03-12 at 8.29.46 AM

These Republicans do show that evolution doesn’t necessarily select for intelligence.

Picture of the Day

This would make more sense than the current motto.

Trusting in science, as a method, has the advantage that if wrong it is self-correcting and accepts change as new information is discovered or if it doesn’t hold up to testing. Scientists might not always be right, but the alternative is going with people who just pull “facts” out of their ass, like creationists, global warming deniers, theologians, and Republicans. (I realize there is redundancy in that list).

Ross Douthout Shows Rejection of Science Is Necessary To Succeed In GOP

Ross Douthat has unintentionally demonstrated that one cannot be a successful Republican candidate without rejecting science (or at least hiding their beliefs)  in a post on why Jon Huntsman’s campaign for the Republican nomination has been unsuccessful. Douthat says that Huntsman has failed because, “He picked high-profile fights on two hot-button issues — evolution and global warming…” He considers this to be “political malpractice at its worst.”

In other words, it is now political suicide in the Republican Party to openly acknowledge acceptance of science. Evolution is firmly established as a factual explanation for the development of complex organisms from simple organisms and is the foundation of modern biology. The science behind global warming is accepted by well over ninety percent of scientists in the field. Despite this, conservatives reject both fields of science. The typical conservative not only rejects,  but is totally ignorant of the evidence for evolution, and considers creationism to be a valid alternative. Conservatives see climate change as a conspiracy and a hoax while creating their own hoax with the bogus claims surrounding “Climategate”  which have been debunked by five separate investigations.

British Scientists Opposing Teaching Of Creationism In Public Schools

While much of Europe has become  more secular than the United States, they still face the problem we have here of creationists trying to use the public schools to promote their religious beliefs. The Guardian reports on a group of prominent scientists who are trying to prevent the teaching of creationism in publicly funded schools:

Prominent scientists, including Sir David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, have called on the government to toughen its guidance on the promotion of creationism in classrooms, accusing “religious fundamentalists” of portraying it as scientific theory in publicly funded schools.

A group of 30 scientists have signed a statement saying it is “unacceptable” to teach creationism and intelligent design, whether it happens in science lessons or not. The statement claims two organisations, Truth in Science and Creation Ministries International are “touring the UK and presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science”.

“Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly funded schools,” the scientists say.

“There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly funded school of whatever type.”

The scientists claim organisations such as Truth in Science are encouraging teachers to incorporate intelligent design into their science teaching.

“Truth in Science has sent free resources to all secondary heads of science and to school librarians around the country that seek to undermine the theory of evolution and have intelligent design ideas portrayed as credible scientific viewpoints. Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science at a number of schools.”

The Anti-Science Party

I’ve disagreed with some of Paul Krugman’s writings when he as discussed politics recently, but he is certainly correct with this warning:

Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect.

This comes at the end of a column which primarily deals with Republicans who deny climate change, pointing out that “the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.”

Krugman targetted not only Rick Perry, but Mitt Romney who has been running away from the issue out of political expediency:

According to Public Policy Polling, only 21 percent of Republican voters in Iowa believe in global warming (and only 35 percent believe in evolution). Within the G.O.P., willful ignorance has become a litmus test for candidates, one that Mr. Romney is determined to pass at all costs.

So, yes, Krugman’s warning is valid. There is an excellent chance that the Republican nominee in any given year will be anti-science. In a two party system, there is a high probability that sooner or later the Republican nominee will be elected.

Responses To The Anti-Science Right On Evolution

I sometimes think that the Democratic Party is the most inept political organization in the history of mankind, barely being able to capitalize on an opposing party which is attempting to destroy Social Security and Medicare, and making absolutely no attempt to benefit from the hostility towards science and reason in the right wing. At least sources outside of the Democratic Party are responding to the ignorant rants from GOP leaders such as Rick Perry and those with similar beliefs.

Richard Dawkins writes in The Washington Post: Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact, responding to Perry’s attacks on modern science. Some excerpts (emphasis mine):

A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.

Darwin’s idea is arguably the most powerful ever to occur to a human mind. The power of a scientific theory may be measured as a ratio: the number of facts that it explains divided by the number of assumptions it needs to postulate in order to do the explaining. A theory that assumes most of what it is trying to explain is a bad theory. That is why the creationist or ‘intelligent design’ theory is such a rotten theory.

After an explanation of the importance of evolution, Dawkins concluded:

There are many reasons to vote against Rick Perry. His fatuous stance on the teaching of evolution in schools is perhaps not the first reason that springs to mind. But maybe it is the most telling litmus test of the other reasons, and it seems to apply not just to him but, lamentably, to all the likely contenders for the Republican nomination. The ‘evolution question’ deserves a prominent place in the list of questions put to candidates in interviews and public debates during the course of the coming election.

Bryan Fischer  of The American Family Association claims that defeating Darwinism is so easy a caveman could do it. Fischer then proceeded to write a number of scientific fallacies so dumb that only a caveman should fall for what he writes. I would debunk his claims, but this has already been done by several others, including PZ Myers and Charles Johnson.

Rick Perry and the Anti-Science Right

Science is the way in which we seek to understand the universe around us in an objective manner, based upon evidence as opposed to relying on personal opinion or superstition. Republicans have been increasingly promoting ignorance as a virtue, ignoring science whenever it disagrees with their personal opinions or political platform. Rick Perry, who has suddenly become a front-runner from the GOP nomination, displayed his view of science in this comment on global warming:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday told a New Hampshire business crowd that he harbors major doubts about human contributions to global warming, questioning the motives of scientists who have warned about accelerating climate change and arguing against expensive “anti-carbon programs.”

Fielding audience questions after brief remarks that dwelled largely on fiscal and economic issues, Perry encountered one skeptic who said he was quoting from Perry’s 2010 book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America From Washington, then asked whether misgivings about climate science fueled distrust of federal research in general.

“I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized,” Perry answered. “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”

Pegging the global cost of implementing “anti-carbon programs” in the billions or trillions of dollars, Perry said, “I don’t think from my perspective that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on [what is] still a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is more and more being put into question.”

Perry is also a creationist who also says that evolution is a theory, repeating the common error of the anti-science right of failing to distinguish between the word theory as used in science as opposed to by the general public.

Perry is, of course, wrong, but this is what no-nothing Republican voters want to hear. Saying nonsense such as this undoubtedly does give Perry an advantage over Mitt Romney, who has agreed with the proven facts that human action is affecting the climate.

Two More Examples That Michele Bachmann Is Bat-Shit Crazy

Michele Bachmann came out of the recent debate in New Hampshire with favorable publicity. While one debate hardly determines the shape of a primary race, she placed herself in a good position to possibly become the major anti-Romney candidate. Whether she has a shot at winning the nomination may depend upon whether the primaries are dominated by far right-wing Republicans or whether more independents vote in the GOP primaries in the absence of a competitive Democratic race.

Bachmann has provided more examples this week as to why she should not be considered a viable presidential candidate–not that this will have an bearing on Republicans. First, as CNN reports, she has demonstrated her ignorance of science by calling for the teaching of intelligent design:

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann explained her skepticism of evolution on Friday and said students should be taught the theory of intelligent design.

Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota, also proposed a major overhaul of the nation’s education system and said state administrators should be able to decide how they spend money allocated to them by the federal government.

“I support intelligent design,” Bachmann told reporters in New Orleans following her speech to the Republican Leadership Conference. “What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.”

Bachmann also showed her ignorance about of health care policy in promoting this bizarre conspiracy theory about Barack Obama and Medicare:

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the latest candidate to join the Republican presidential campaign, suggested Friday that President Obama secretly wanted Medicare to go bankrupt so retirees would be forced to enroll in the new national health care law.

“This hasn’t been talked about very much – the president’s plan for senior citizens is Obamacare,” Ms. Bachmann told party activists here. She added, “I think very likely what the president intends is that Medicare will go broke and ultimately that answer will be Obamacare for senior citizens.”

Even looking at this from the perspective of opposing government programs, this one just makes no sense. Medicare is a single-payer system where (with some exceptions) the government essentially acts as the only insurance company. Obama’s health care plan would have people covered by multiple competing private insurance plans, with increased regulation of the insurance industry to attempt to eliminate the abuses currently present. If Obama is a big-government Democrat, or perhaps a socialist as many right-wingers claim, he would prefer a government program such as Medicare as opposed to “Obamacare.”

It makes no sense that Obama would want to move Medicare beneficiaries into the types of private plans which would dominate his health care plan. However, there is one group which does support this idea–the Republican Party. This is essentially what Paul Ryan’s plan would do with Medicare.

Did Michele Bachmann really intend to say that Barack Obama supports the Ryan plan, or is she just confused about  all these government policies? As with her Tea Party supporters, I’ll go with confusion and ignorance on their part.

And Dinosaurs Too

Updating the earlier story on the planned creationist theme park, as the cretins behind the project believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, the planned ark will include dinosaurs. Twelve year old boys should love this–unless they have any knowledge of science.

Young earth creationists, whose understanding of science is at the level of The Flintstones, include one-third of the population of Texas and Sarah Palin.

Creationist Theme Park Planned

It looks like we are going to have another theme park in the southern United States devoted to total fantasy. We already have fantasy-themed parks such as Disney’s Magic Kingdom which presents the illusion that Disney princesses and other Disney characters were real people. The Governor of Kentucky announced the building of a new fantasy theme park in his state. It will be a creationist theme park which presents the illusion that creationism is a valid explanation for the development of complex organisms.

Theme parks typically include spectacular attractions. The Magic Kingdom has Cinderella’s Castle in the center–a fictitious castle which was the home of a fictitious person. The planned creationist theme park will include a wooden ark, based upon a fictitious ark built by Noah, another fictitious person.

Update: And Dinosaurs Too