Which 2012 Presidential Challengers Are Creationists?

THIS article from Fox News, For Republicans, a Narrowing List of Presidential Prospects, discusses several names being mentioned as possible Republican candidates for President in the 2012 election. It’s early, but we’ll give you what information we can find about their creationist leanings.

Why do we bother? As we said in our Open Letter to Sarah Palin:

This is important — not because a Vice President (and possibly President) needs to know anything about geology, biology, and astronomy, but because the person who occupies such a position needs to be rational. We must know if you understand the difference between science and faith. Do you accept the existence of objective reality, or do you deny it?

Assuming that you believe the Genesis creation account as a matter of faith, do you also accept that science has verifiable evidence supporting a very different description of the world? If the answer to that is “Yes,” can you keep your faith in Genesis apart from the way you evaluate evidence and make decisions in the secular world? If so, we can accept that. But you have to tell us.

Fox mentions former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. We discussed him last year when he was a potential Vice Presidential pick. He’s okay, and that’s a rarity. See: McCain’s Possible VP Choices — Creationists?

In that same article, we pointed out those who are creationists, two of whom are now considered Presidential contenders: Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas, and Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana. We also discussed Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, although at that time we didn’t know his position. We learned it later and mentioned it here. He’s a creationist too.

Fox also talks about Mississippi Governor, Haley Barbour. We’ve already discussed him here. His position isn’t known, but we have reason to suspect that he may be a creationist. However, we’re really guessing about him.

The Fox story also says:

Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor … and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels are the names now being whispered in Republican circles as potential winners — although observers admit political speculations can change overnight.

We haven’t yet researched Cantor or Daniels. Maybe we won’t have to. Time will tell.

They also mention former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. We’ve reported extensively on Palin’s views (see all our articles on: Sarah Palin & Creationism), but we haven’t yet looked into Giuliani’s. And somehow, Fox didn’t mention Florida governor Charlie Crist, but during the latest legislative session of that state, he indicated that he may be a creationist — at least he wouldn’t veto religious auto tags. He may not be a creationist, but he knows how to pander. See: Buffoon Award Winner — Ronda Storms.

Nor did Fox mention Newt Gingrich — another name we haven’t researched regarding creationism. We’re certain that Newt is bright enough to understand how goofy creationism is as a science, but he’s been on a pandering crusade, so there’s no telling what position he’ll take.

So there you are. We know where some of the potential candidates stand on the theory of evolution, and we have suspicions about some others. There are a few more that we’ll need to check out if circumstances require it. As we said before, there’s plenty of time.

Addendum: See Rick Santorum: Full-Blown Creationist, and also Rick Santorum: Proud To Be a Theocrat.

See also: Tim Pawlenty: Full-Blown Creationist.

See also: John Kasich of Ohio: Creationist.

See also: Creationist Wisdom #96: Alan Keyes.

Update: See New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: Creationist?

Update: See Is Texas Governor Rick Perry Insane?

Update: See Newt Gingrich: Probably Not a Creationist.

Update: See Hey Michele Bachmann: Show Us Your Laureates.

Update: See Herman Cain Is a Creationist.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Which 2012 Presidential Challengers Are Creationists?

  1. The Gadfly

    It is unfortunately getting to the point where any Republican with a chance at the nomination is a Creationist, a big downside of the Nixon strategy.

    Perhaps the Republican Party is irredeemable at this point, since excising the Creationists from its midst would kill the patient.

    Thanks Tricky Dicky.

  2. It looks as if the Republicans may have to continue the Southern Strategy with the Hominy Ticket. Huckabee/Romney. You know – puffed-up and corny.

  3. The GOP needs to reach out to the reality-based community.

  4. James F says: “The GOP needs to reach out to the reality-based community.”

    Bah! It takes more faith to believe in reality than it does to believe in the tooth fairy.

  5. Nice!

  6. I’m confused, what do you mean by “is a creationist”? If someone (e.g. Sarah Palin) takes the Genesis account (any of the mutually contradictory “literal” versions) on faith but admits that the evidence doesn’t support it and that evolution should not be misrepresented with phony “weaknesses” in science class, does that make one “a creationist?” Conversely, if someone accepts all of evolution but supports teaching phony “weaknesses” (McCain’s position at one time, but I’m not sure if his latest) does that make one “a creationist”?

    As for Newt, I just read a 2006 article in which he accepted evolution, but seemed to have been partially fooled by the “activist judge” thing. Although he qualified that by admitting that he knew little of the Dover trial. But as you suggest, the DI could make him an offer that no politician can refuse.

  7. Frank J says:

    If someone (e.g. Sarah Palin) takes the Genesis account (any of the mutually contradictory “literal” versions) on faith but admits that the evidence doesn’t support it and that evolution should not be misrepresented with phony “weaknesses” in science class, does that make one “a creationist?

    I’ve referred to Sarah Palin that rarest of creationists — a libertarian creationist — one who is quite happy to keep her creation “science” to herself and not force it upon others.

  8. I’ve referred to Sarah Palin that rarest of creationists — a libertarian creationist — one who is quite happy to keep her creation “science” to herself and not force it upon others.

    I appreciate the distinction (very different from the DI, AiG, etc.), but the question remains, especially for someone who would be appointing the head of the NIH and scientific advisors: are we scientists incompetent, or engaged in conspiracy, when it comes to evolution and the lack of evidence against it? One of these days the evolution = atheism canard will wither, and creationism will lose all but its most hardcore adherents. And we’ll look back and laugh knowingly, the way we do at geocentrists.

  9. Sorry Curm, but anyone who believes the world is ~10,000 years old and was poofed into existence doesn’t have the rationality to lead a military power even if they claim to be able to separate their religion from their politics.

    Palin has another strike against her, she has been shown to not be able to think on her feet. When she is scripted she is fine, when questions are asked outside of that scripting she stops thinking. In an emergency, would you trust her to make the right snap judgment?

    Surely the Republican party has a token non-white and/or non-male candidate other than Palin that can be paraded out for the masses.

  10. Tundra Boy says:

    Sorry Curm, but anyone who believes the world is ~10,000 years old and was poofed into existence doesn’t have the rationality to lead a military power even if they claim to be able to separate their religion from their politics.

    You’d be horrified to know how many US military officers — high ranking ones — are creationists.

  11. Curmudgeon wrote: “You’d be horrified to know how many US military officers — high ranking ones — are creationists.”

    Given that most are not scientists (many engineers but there’s that Salem thing) I’m guessing it’s close to that of the general public – ~45% that really has not given much thought as to YEC vs OEC (each with their own mutually contradictory subsets) or whether they base it on faith or evidence.

    I worked with a guy (engineer) who was like Palin seems to be – took YEC on faith but admitted that the evidence (what little he considered) did not support it. While that is far from ideal for a president, senator, rep., etc., IMO it’s preferable to one who accepts evolution but supports anti-evolution legislation. I like to think that McCain only supported it because he had been reversibly misled by the “fairness” nonsense. OTOH I suspect that Jindal is in on the scam – possibly privately accepts evolution but also believes that the “masses” need to believe fairy tales to behave properly.

  12. Creationism in the military is also a symptom of Dominionism. As bad as a nuclear-armed Pakistan is, having a bunch of theocrats in charge of world’s most powerful military is terrifying.