Our presidential candidates on evolution -- and why it matters Mitt Romney
President Barack Obama
“I believe that God
“We should encour-
“I…believe our
designed the uni-
age schools to teach
schools are there to
verse and created
better science and
teach worldly knowl-
the universe, and I
to teach more about
edge and science. I
believe evolution is
evolution, including
believe in evolution,
most likely the pro-
the gaps and con-
and I believe there’s
cess he used to cre-
troversies surrounding
a difference between
ate the human body.”
evolution.”
science and faith.”
tives. In particular, crucial evidence for evolution is outright ignored in favor of hyperbolic attacks. My personal favorite creationist denial of science is the argument that 14 million tons of meteorite dust should land on Earth each year, much more than is measured. Aside from the fact that the methodology employed by the author of the paper they cite contained many holes (such as assuming that all nickel-containing particulate matter comes from extraterrestial sources) and that they cite as fact the author’s maximum figure, which by his own admission is a gross overestimate,
phoro courtesy wikimedia.com
By Staff Writer James Rowan Why does a candidate’s view on evolution matter? Local authorities, such as school boards and state education agencies, call the shots when it comes to science curricula. Even the ability to appoint the secretary of education and supreme court justices has little impact on what students learn. While I acknowledge that economic issues are the predominant focus of the 2012 election, I see two problems with the inherent electing of an anti-evolution president. The first is that denial of evolution constitutes a denial of science in favor of ideology. The second is that the stance that evolution should not be taught or should be taught alongside creationism is blatantly unconstitutional. First, any alternative to evolution is necessarily motivated by an epistemology that is, in a word, not science. The scientific method relies on empirical observation and the testing of theories by experiment. Micro- and macro-evolution have been demonstrated by experiment, and no counterexamples exist that would call the theory into question. Scientists studying paleozoology and paleobotany look at data and draw conclusions without an agenda or a vested interest in whether evolution is “right” or “wrong” (two terms, by the way, that are particularly dangerous when describing theories which can never be conclusively proven to be universally either right or wrong). On the contrary, creation “scientists” almost always start from the premise that evolution is wrong—or, more typically, that the account of creation given in the Bible is a true, literal account of the origin of the universe—and work from there, citing everything from outdated papers based on flawed data to theological tracts in an attempt to justify their alterna-
22
Rick Santorum
Like all of his predecessors, Obama swore into the presidency in 2008 upon the Bible. This is one of many practices that illustrates the intertwining of politics and religion.
the creationists ignore that that paper was from 1960 and that newer satellite-based measurements are in line with observed meteorite-dust levels on earth. By cherrypicking one paper and ignoring the rest of the literature on the topic, creationists are not doing real science. They’re attempting to appropriate scientific articles and termi-
nology out of context in order to advance their ideology. The ideology-over-evidence mindset of evolution denialists has the potential to wreak havoc on the US—and not just by running our already laughable (see my 2009 Scientific Marskman article) science education system further into the ground. If a politician can casually pass over the views of generations of specialists and experts on a low-stakes matter like evolution, he or she can just as easily ignore the evidence for global warming, for the effectiveness of countercyclical government spending to combat economic contractions, or against weapons of mass destruction in a Middle Eastern country. Regardless of one’s opinion on whether nation-building in Iraq is justified and necessary, the original justification—WMDs—was given by the Bush administration despite evidence to the contrary. Similarly, candidates are increasingly willing to engage in demagoguery by promoting protectionism—the notion that trade should be restricted— despite hundreds of years of economic theory and empirical data showing that it costs more jobs and money than allowing free trade. The risks of refusing to take action on global warming are catastrophic and global, but apparently an ideological opposition to government regulation in free markets is more important to many right-wing politicians. Incidentally, their opposition to regulation and belief that the current system can solve global warming is itself a denial of economic fact: negative externalities are not addressed by pure free markets without allocation of property rights. Equally troubling is what belief in the teaching of creationism says about the
continued on next page