I criticized Mike Huckabee for his creationist views on the 6th of December. In fairness to the other Republican candidates in the field, I have to point out that Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback share the same view. Sam Brownback is no longer in the race, and Tom Tancredo has so little support in Iowa and New Hampshire that he doesn't even show up on the charts at Pollster.com.
But there's another Republican in the race who does show up (6% in Iowa), who's raised a lot of money ($4.5 million in one day on the Internet), who thinks asking presidential candidates about evolution is inappropriate, and who doesn't accept the theory of evolution – Ron Paul.
Why does it matter whether or not presidential candidates accept the evidence for evolution? Because the evidence is overwhelming. As I wrote in my comment on Huckabee, “It is dangerous to have someone so resistant to evidence and reason as President of the United States.” If you don't believe me, take a look at the David Finkelstein's column from the Times of London.
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.
Substitute &ldquo:Ron Paul” for “Huckabee” and you reach the same conclusion: “This is a serious downside in a President, whatever his other qualities.”
Ron Brayton pointed out the Ron Paul video.
Leave a comment