(H/t Oliver Willis) Mike Pence went on Hardball and had a hard time saying whether he believed in evolution. I know some readers here take a nuanced view on the issue — the Bible is metaphor, maybe God worked through evolutionary processes, etc. But that’s not the problem Pence is having here.
He has to deal with people in his party who believe that God put Adam & Eve on earth directly with no evolution from non-homo sapiens. He has to deal with people in his party who think fossils were put in the earth by the Devil to test the faithful. Unless and until Republican leaders are willing to just come out and say that, while their followers are free to believe and worship as they wish, the Republican leaders personally trust in the scientific method and believe that the available evidence suggests that the world was not created in a literal seven days and that humans evolved into humans over long periods of time (whether through a divinely guided plan or not), and that where rigorously conducted scientific study contradicts religious dogma, the appropriate thing is to govern based on the science rather than the religion. Unless and until the Republicans are willing to make these small steps, they are not going to be able to shake the reputation of being anti-science.
And just to take that nice point one step further, appearing to be anti-science is not just a PR or perception issue. How can constituents expect their representatives to be legislatively effective around serious issues like climate change and peak oil if those representatives don’t even believe (or can’t say out loud that they believe) that the information about those issues was obtained through a legitimate process? It demonstrates a real lack of integrity and even fulfillment of basic job description, IMHO.
Chris
Pence’s dilemma is typical of current GOP folks. How to mouth the concept of greater inclusiveness while not saying directly that the party needs to free itself from domination by the Religious Right. He’s closer to that base than many, and so feels obliged, as he did on Hardball, to specifically include “traditional moral values” in his litany of what his party stands for. That term is missing from the statements of many of his colleagues. Their dilemma isn’t helped by Rush Limbaugh’s statement that the party doesn’t need a listening tour but a teaching tour. That comes across to many as pretty smug “God’s way or the highway” theocracy.
Or, slightly more to the point, in my opinion: “Those who claim to speak for God’s way or the highway.”
Amen.
This belief system directly affects policy. They put people like James Inhofe in charge of climate change policy back when they had power. Inhofe, whose response to climate change was, “God’s still up there.”
I would prefer that these people stay home and pray really hard about the issues of the day, if that is really their belief. If God’s really in charge, then meddlesome reality-based legislation will be no match for him, anyway.
Science and religion are both equally flawed, because both are based on fundamentally wrong epistemological principles: empirical observation in the case of science, and faith in the case of religion.
The problem with empirical observation is that it can only tell you how things appear to be, which isn’t necessarily how things actually are. To know how things actually are, you need philosophy, which is predicated on abstract rational thought and is therefore completely reliable and correct when done properly.
And there’s the rub, “when done properly”.
Thank goodness that some scientists (and philosophers) care enough to do that very thing.
For the rest, meh.
I’ve been saying, Al’-ba-tross!, all day long now. Thanks. lol
What do we do with “scientists” or activists who advocate global cooling, global warming, and then “climate change”?
Perceptions rule, but both sides have their fringes. It’s a shame that only the one side seems to be recognized consistently by the educated and tolerant. I guess it’s better to be sophisticated and wrong than unwashed and ignorant– or maybe we should hold the sophisticated to a higher standard?
Become knowledgable enough to be able to critically analyze their work. Look what “peer review” gets us in politics. Same for anything else.
Too many people just assume truth in whatever it is that they wish to believe.
Pence knows where his base is. He’s not going to piss them off then have the Club for Growth or some other fringe group primary him.
The purification movement in the Republican Party is organized and well funded, but electorally non-viable. It will be intersting to see who they turn on next.
Fascinating observations on a subject that will never ever be agreed upon by either believers or non-believers and of course really doesn’t matter to anyone until after roughly 76 years (avg) on this planet.
Ahhh Tim, we’re all believers…it’s just a matter of what you believe– and why– and the implications of those beliefs.
“Equally flawed”?
One is testable. The other is pretty much based on one book containing testimonials from 2000 or more years ago.
Science has some flaws. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking it and religion are equally unable to explain the world around us.
Religion and science– as pursuits– are flawed, in that they are pursued by humans.
Religion and science– as studies, in pursuit of Truth– are limited but noble and have much to offer.
Comparing religion and science as studies is comparing apples and oranges– or apples and rocks. For the most part, they speak to different realms. It would be more appropriate to compare the contributions of religion to those of history and psychology.
Of course, there is a key overlap (with degrees of opposition) between the Creation narrative of religion and the scientific-flavored narrative of “creation”. And many people conflate Science with science-flavored stories.
Pence shouldn’t be let anywhere near a microphone or cameras. If he were ugly, I don’t think anyone would put him forth as the go-to guy for airing the Republican viewpoint.
“One is testable.”
This is true. You can test whether, under a given set of apparent conditions, my observations are the same as your observations.
That’s still no guarantee that these observations reflect what is actually happening. For that you need abstract reasoning, i.e. philosophy.