Huckabee, creationism, and the presidency.

Take a look at this (old) video from the third CNN debate on June 5, 2007. Mike Huckabee says he doesn't know whether God created the world in six literal days or in six days that represent periods of time.

I don't know. I wasn't there...But you know, if anyone wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it.

Huckabee wants to avoid the issue, because “I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth grade science book.” He seems to think that it's irrelevant that his personal beliefs contradict an overwhelming body of scientific evidence. And don't think he can escape by arguing that he's a theistic evolutionist, a la Mitt Romney. He clearly doesn't accept the idea of common descent. He clearly doesn't understand that he shares a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas (and fruit flies and fungus and sunflowers, for that matter). It is dangerous to have someone so resistant to evidence and reason as President of the United States.

Here's how Daniel Finkelstein put it in the Times of London on Tuesday.

Huckabee contends that it doesn't matter, because he is not intending to insist that schools stop teaching evolution. But that really isn't the point.

The reason that his support for intelligent design matters is that it is ridiculous. Who wants a President of the United States who doesn't accept the basic principles of science, taking refuge instead in a load of mumbo jumbo?

The religious beliefs of a President are a matter of conscience, but intelligent design is not a religious idea. It is, deliberately, put as an alternative scientific theory. But it is, sadly, nonsense.

It is clearly vital that he or she be someone who accepts and understands scientific methods. By rejecting evolution in favour of intelligent design Huckabee illustrates that he does not reach scientific conclusions based on evidence.

This is a serious downside in a President, whatever his other qualities.

Andrew Sulliivan pointed out the Finkelstein piece.

UPDATE (27 December 2007): I just realized that I didn't include a link to the Times of London piece. It's there now.