Yahoo - Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

Sigh.

http://news.yahoo.com/creationism-controversies-norm-among-potential-republican-2016-contenders-180354094--politics.html

Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

By Pema Levy

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) raised eyebrows Monday when he told GQ he couldn't answer a question about the age of the earth because "I'm not a scientist, man."

Having a top prospect for the 2016 presidential nomination say the age of the planet is "one of the great mysteries" comes at an awkward time for a party attempting to rebuild from its Nov. 6 drubbing at the hands of voters turned off by the GOP's embrace of social conservatives. But Rubio is hardly alone among potential Republican presidential contenders. Other big names for 2016 have weighed in publicly at various times over the years to position themselves as supportive of creationism proponents.

To science education advocates, these public statements fall into two categories: craven political panders to the conservative base and expressions of actual doubt in basic scientific principles. Both are disconcerting, the advocates say, and whether or not a president stands up for science has a broader impact than the education battles where creationism most often comes up.

"It's important beyond whether somebody has a direct impact on evolution [education] because it's an indicator of the way they look at the world and who they accept as reliable guides and authorities on subjects," said Dr. Eric Meikle, an anthropologist and director of education at the National Center for Science Education. "It's very important in terms of that."

For the record, Mitt Romney actually accepted the science of evolution and opposed the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" theory in science classrooms when he was governor of Massachusetts. That puts him to the left of some of the men potentially vying to be his replacement on the ticket in four years.

A look at some big names in 2016 Republican presidential speculation and what they've said about evolution or creationism:

MORE AFTER LINK

In fairness, the guys he's citing have mostly just ducked the issue. This is a bigger indictment of the GOP electorate that so many of them are incapable of tolerating critical thinking.

If Rubio says the truth or what he really thinks, he isolates himself from many votes.

Its that simple

LOL Who cares? I would have said the same thing if asked.

Yeah, the repubs won't be getting into the White House for a long time....Good.

I love the completely manufactured faux controversy of this" story." What, tell me, is offensive about Rubio's answer here? Should a politician moonlight as a geologist?

Some people are so easily led, no wonder the media can float such nonsense in the name of news The liberal press should at least take some time off and enjoy the Obama victory. They'll have plenty of time to put out more trash like this in the run up to 2016.

LOL Who cares? I would have said the same thing if asked.

It matters in terms of science education.

Do we want to allow people to teach what fundamentally is not science (not science that it is science that I disagree with, but isn't science in of to itself based on the definition of science) in a science in class along side of science.

It matters in terms of science education.

Do we want to allow people to teach what fundamentally is not science (not science that it is science that I disagree with, but isn't science in of to itself based on the definition of science) in a science in class along side of science.

I'm not in favor of teaching religion in science class.

But I don't think whether a person believes in evolution or not is a big deal...and it shouldn't be.

He gave a politicians answer to avoid losing votes of people who get offended by facts/science. This isn't some controversial subject here and it's sad you have to tip toe around the reality of the world you live in to avoid upsetting some people.

Did he mean like "I don't know how many millions of years old the earth is," or was he saying "I don't know if the earth is ten thousand years old or millions of years old."

Did he mean like "I don't know how many millions of years old the earth is," or was he saying "I don't know if the earth is ten thousand years old or millions of years old."

This is part of his quote..

Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

He's trying to tip toe around upsetting people who want to believe the earth appeared out of thin air to being full of life in 7 days.

It matters in terms of science education.

Do we want to allow people to teach what fundamentally is not science (not science that it is science that I disagree with, but isn't science in of to itself based on the definition of science) in a science in class along side of science.

example?

Certainly science classes should be reserved for science,not religion or political activism

I'm not in favor of teaching religion in science class.

But I don't think whether a person believes in evolution or not is a big deal...and it shouldn't be.

Realistically, though the two things (the education and beliefs) are connected in essentially every case. I don't know of a single politician that has said, I'm not sure of the age of the Earth, BUT I don't think they should teach some sort of creationism or intelligent design in science classes.

Including Rubio!

In addition, I do think it does have some larger ramifications in terms of decision making processes as outlined in the OP:

"It's important beyond whether somebody has a direct impact on evolution [education] because it's an indicator of the way they look at the world and who they accept as reliable guides and authorities on subjects," said Dr. Eric Meikle, an anthropologist and director of education at the National Center for Science Education. "It's very important in terms of that."

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 05:14 PM ----------

example?

Certainly science classes should be reserved for science,not religion or political activism

Creationism or intellient design does not suggest any testable hypothesis that would be offered as evidence against said hypothesis.

Everything and anything is consistent with the idea that an extremely powerful being(s) that we have no real hope of understanding created the universe, created humans, etc.

This is part of his quote..

He's trying to tip toe around upsetting people who want to believe the earth appeared out of thin air to being full of life in 7 days.

Well, that's a shame then. So much for joining the next millenium. Actually, its more like last millenium.

This is part of his quote..

He's trying to tip toe around upsetting people who want to believe the earth appeared out of thin air to being full of life in 7 days.

Well, that's a shame then. So much for joining the next millenium. Actually, its more like last millenium.

example?

Certainly science classes should be reserved for science,not religion or political activism

Creationism or intellient design does not suggest any testable hypothesis that would be offered as evidence against said hypothesis.

Everything and anything is consistent with the idea that an extremely powerful being(s) that we have no real hope of understanding created the universe, created humans, etc.

Yay glad to this this issue brought up! Hopefully it will be used to hammer the GOP on the head until they understand that science denying is not just bad policy but also bad politics.

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 05:20 PM ----------

I'm not in favor of teaching religion in science class.

But I don't think whether a person believes in evolution or not is a big deal...and it shouldn't be.

What are your thoughts on importance of having a basic understanding of how science works?

btw it's really sad to see Rubio take this route.

For the record, Mitt Romney actually accepted the science of evolution and opposed the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" theory in science classrooms when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Yeah, but I bet he would have renounced that position, if anybody had asked, during the primaries.

Creationism or intellient design does not suggest any testable hypothesis that would be offered as evidence against said hypothesis.

Everything and anything is consistent with the idea that an extremely powerful being(s) that we have no real hope of understanding created the universe, created humans, etc.

Is science class for the scientific method or do we include the philosophy of science?....what about metaphysics?

How far you open the door determines what comes in

Is science class for the scientific method or do we include the philosophy of science?....what about metaphysics?

How far you open the door determines what comes in

In high school you generally take Biology, Physics, and Chemistry. At the most basic levels they can be taught without introducing philosophy into it IMO, (maybe not astrophysics, but generally astronomy is taught as an elective since the big bang may come into play). I think its possible to keep philosophy and science separate, science is generally testable and observable. Kind of hard to replicate a sisyphus paradox. I'm all for creating more philosophy geared classes in HS, but keep them as electives. If kids want to open up a can of worms, let them do it on their own accord.

I'm not in favor of teaching religion in science class.

But I don't think whether a person believes in evolution or not is a big deal...and it shouldn't be.

The POTUS should not be a science mistrusting buffoon. I don't think people seem to realize how embarrassing the modern Republican parties platform on science is.

What are your thoughts on importance of having a basic understanding of how science works?

There are plenty of intelligent people who believe one way or the other on the issue, I don't see any reason to put some kind of evolution/creationism test against people.

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 05:52 PM ----------

The POTUS should not be a science mistrusting buffoon. I don't think people seem to realize how embarrassing the modern Republican parties platform on science is.

Not believing in evolution does not make one a buffoon. I know more than a few smart folks of that sort, including those much more into science and tech than I.

Here is actually what Rubio said directly after the not a scientist line below. Nice faux outrage GQ. You fail.

I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

Not believing in evolution does not make one a buffoon. I know more than a few smart folks of that sort, including those much more into science and tech than I.

Those smart folks are most likely not qualified to commentate on scientific issues because it is not an issue amongst scientists. The POTUS has a direct effect on the science policy adopted by his administration, so it is important that he be well educated on something very important for the present and future.

Those smart folks are most likely not qualified to commentate on scientific issues because it is not an issue amongst scientists. The POTUS has a direct effect on the science policy adopted by his administration, so it is important that he be well educated on something very important for the present and future.

That's an interesting opinion, but I disagree.

I don't think it's any of our business if someone believes in evolution or not, even if they are president or a politician.

Now their policies...that's another thing.