Presidents Should Support Evolution

1 04 2008

Filed under: Election, 2008, Politics, Evolution, Liberalism, Conservatism, Science, Christianity

Does a disbelief in evolution automatically exclude a candidate from qualifying to be president of the United States? Apparently so, to some liberals.

It all started last May when, during the first Republican presidential debate, Huckabee and two other Republican candidates (Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Tom Tancredo) raised their hands in response to a question asking who among the candidates “does not believe in evolution.”

Those three raised hands set off a cascade of criticism. An AP story warned, “Some Republicans … get queasy about a candidate who … raised his hand when GOP debaters were asked who didn’t believe in evolution. …” Elizabeth Edwards complained, “[Huckabee] doesn’t believe in evolution. … Republicans scare me.” And Christopher Caldwell of the London Financial Times wrote that Huckabee alarmed secular voters because he “rejects the theory of evolution with a glib obscurantism out of another century.”

Even Charles Darwin weighed in – well, not Darwin himself but his great-great grandson Matthew Chapman, who insisted that the election of an anti-evolution president “cannot be allowed to happen.”

Of course, this is only an issue for an ever-decreasing number of elitist liberals who are habitually unable to put forth a genuine argument that doesn’t include defamation, calumny, or insults of intelligence levels as if we should all adhere to an idea as fact simply under the guise that it cannot be disproved.

But what does a non-belief in evolution really have to do with the highest office in the land? Why do these haughty big-heads really care to make a fuss to their cohorts over a litmus test for president?

As National Academy of Sciences Chairman Francisco Ayala put it, “I would worry that a president who does not believe in evolution would not believe in other [scientific] arguments as well.”

Ah, yes. But of course. How foolish of us…those other “scientific” arguments. That’s liberal-speak for “twisting moral issues into political ones.” Consider the following issues, all moral mind you, that liberals have tried to to twist into political ones for their personal power gains: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and same-sex marriage.

Consider abortion. Religious conservatives believe it involves the destruction of innocent human life, and modern science supports this view. Ultrasound technology and fetal development research have highlighted the humanity of the unborn child and thus the destructive reality of abortion. “Window to the womb” laws have passed in dozens of states, allowing women a more complete picture of what abortion is. As Kate Michaelman and Francis Kippling, two leaders of the abortion lobby, recently admitted in an editorial, “Science facilitated the swing of the pendulum” that gave “anti-abortionists an advantage, and they made the best of it.”

Social science continues to underscore a possible causal link between abortion and depression. A 2006 New Zealand study echoed several previous studies in finding that women who abort prior to age 21 had rates of subsequent mental disorders more than one-and-a-half times higher than rates for women who did not become pregnant and those who became pregnant but did not abort.

On stem cell research, too, the conservative position is winning. While the left chastises conservatives as “anti-science” for opposing embryo-destructive research, ethical adult and umbilical cord stem cell research have proved much more promising. Recently, independent teams of researchers successfully reprogrammed adult cells to behave like embryonic stem cells, allowing them to grow and potentially turn into any type of body tissue. By all accounts this new research should eliminate demand for destroying human embryos for research.

Then there’s marriage and the family, institutions that conservatives have long argued, and social science long confirmed, are tightly linked with wealth, health and happiness. A recent massive review of 20 years of research in the journal Acta Paediatrica concluded that active fathers are decisive in the development of their children.

These baseless assaults on presidential candidates are as unfounded as the theory of evolution itself. It’s no more than a theory, but the expectation, and ensuing failure, to accept it as fact has resulted in several solid presidential candidates being lambasted unfairly. And it served as a conduit to attack them on moral issues disguised as so-called “scientific” matters. These elitists are well – ahem – educated people. You would think that they could get past the name-calling, but alas, this comes with the territory for calling evolution what it is – a theory.

Tidbits And Treasures trackbacked with: Whose fool are you?




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: