re: #72 Walter L. Newton

Creationist is starting to become a distasteful description for a person, especially a politician to be tagged with. I’m saying that this is akin to screaming heretic and witch. How much longer and they will it be before reporters and the public ask a politician if they believe in a god, and what effect will that have.

Question.

If a politician was asked (left, right what ever politician, I don’t care) if they believe in creationism by a reporter, and they said they do, and they even claimed that evolution is bunk, but they also flatly stated that they don’t want creationism taught in school, would you consider voting for that person if you agreed with most of his other political positions?

Depends. Does he want wind farms constructed? Nuclear power plants? Solar energy pursued vigorously with a view to the earliest possible development of truly competitive technology? Then all else is excused. Otherwise, he’s in trouble with me.

Unfortunately, this is a purely hypothetical case. Those who disbelieve evolution disbelieve climate science as well. And why not? Climate science has not advanced to the same pitch of perfection in its understanding of climate, as evolution is in its understanding of the origin of species.

If the politician cannot understand the one, or if he understands it just fine but he knows his voters think different, he won’t understand the other either, or, again what amounts to the same thing, he will know his voters don’t understand the other either.