WE ALREADY KNOW that John McCain isn’t a creationist. Here is something we posted earlier which tells us about McCain’s position: Presidential Candidates’ Opinions on Evolution.
But what about those whom McCain might select as his running-mate in the coming Presidential campaign? The article linked above leads to this: Mitt Romney on teaching evolution, which informs us that Mitt Romney wants evolution in science class, not Intelligent Design. Fine, but what about the rest of the possible Vice Presidential candidates?
From the Baptist Press we have Where McCain’s possible VP choices stand. The article discusses the views of the people named below, along with those of Charlie Crist, governor of Florida; Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota; Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina; and Mitt Romney on a variety of social issues (gay marriage, stem-cell research, abortion, etc.), but we’re concerned in this blog only with the evolution/creationism issue, so we’ll present those views, where given. Excerpts:
MIKE HUCKABEE — During debates Huckabee regularly fielded questions about matters of faith and was one of three GOP candidates to signal they didn’t believe in evolution. He later told the Des Moines Register, “If you want to believe that your family came from apes, that’s fine. I’ll accept that. I just don’t happen to think that I did.”
He also issued a statement saying he is not against the teaching of evolution in public schools but believes “different theories” about mankind’s origins should be taught.
There was never much doubt about Huckabee’s attitude regarding science.
BOBBY JINDAL — “I’m a biology major,” he said during the debate. “That’s my degree. The reality is there are a lot of things that we don’t understand. There’s no theory in science that could explain how — contrary to the laws of entropy — you could create order out of chaos. There’s no scientific theory that explains how you can create organic life out of inorganic matter. I think we owe it to our children to teach them the best possible modern scientific facts and theories. Teach them what different theories are out there for the things that aren’t answerable by science, that aren’t answered by science. Let them decide for themselves. I don’t think we should be scared to do that. Personally, it certainly makes sense to me that when you look at creation, you would believe in a Creator.”
We mentioned Bobby Jindal’s views earlier, here: Louisiana: Creationist Legislation and a Creationist Governor.
The Baptist Press article also discusses Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, but not his positions on evolution and creationism. However, we have some information on that from another source. This is from a transcript of the governor’s statements on intelligent design — Two Mosquitoes in a Mudhole:
David Stanton: What do you think about the idea of teaching alternatives to Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools – for instance intelligent design?
Gov. Sanford: I have no problem with it.
Stanton: Do you think it should be done that way? Rather than just teaching evolution?
Sanford: “Well I think that it’s just – and science is more and more documenting this – is that there are real chinks in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of there being a . little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with . one of the laws of thermodynamics, which is the law of, of . in essence, destruction.
“Whether you think about your bedroom and how messy it gets over time or you think about the decay in the building itself over time. Things don’t naturally order themselves towards progression, . in the natural order of things. So it’s . against fairly basic laws of physics and so I would not have a problem in teaching both. Uh, you saying ‘This is one theory and this is another theory.'”
So there you have it. Of the people discussed in the article, only Romney opposes creationism (or ID) in science class. Crist and Pawlenty haven’t yet declared themselves one way or the other — at least not that we know of.