This news is a few days old, but we couldn’t get to it because of the predicted Rapture. Now we can return to our usual concern with The Controversy between evolution and creationism.
From the start of our humble blog we’ve been tracking the Republican presidential candidates to see which were creationists. It’s not that we need a President who knows biology, but we’d like one who isn’t insane — that’s not too much to ask, is it? — and creationism is a good indicator. As we said in New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: Creationist?:
We use creationism as a defining issue because, although no one cares if a President understands biology or geology or physics, we need a President with enough sense to consult scientists whenever necessary. If a President is a creationist, he thinks he knows as much as all the scientists out there; and in today’s world that’s exceedingly dangerous. The problem goes far beyond science — if a President truly is a creationist, his mental deficiencies will inevitably become manifest in other areas. Crazy people can’t be trusted.
Our earlier post that we periodically update to keep track of things is Which 2012 Presidential Challengers Are Creationists? Of the current crop of GOP hopefuls, the only one we knew of who definitely isn’t a creationist is Romney. Christie may not be, but he won’t say. We didn’t — until now — have anything definite on Newt Gingrich.
Newt always impressed us with his intelligence, so we’ve been assuming that he’s not a creationist. That’s despite the fact that he’s been shamelessly (albeit necessarily) pandering to the social conservative crowd. It may no longer matter what he thinks because his campaign seems to be foundering at the moment; but it’s too early in the game to know who the nominee will be. Besides, we finally have some information on Newt’s thinking about creationism, so it’s definitely worth mentioning.
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich refused to be pinned down Tuesday as a believer in creationism or evolution as the origin of human life during a gathering of Minnesota social conservatives, where he also endured a protester’s confetti shower.
He wouldn’t be pinned down? That’s not quite true, as you will soon see. And observe the journalist’s description of evolution as “the origin of human life.” We’ll have to look for Newt’s words, not the journalist’s, so let’s read some more:
The former House speaker adopted a nuanced stance in the thorny debate over how life first formed, telling his Minnesota Family Council audience that both theological and scientific views can be right.
Again, the journalist displays his ignorance of what evolution is, but that’s typical. Note also that Newt’s audience was a group with “Family” in its name, so he was speaking to a bunch of creationists. Tough crowed to please, if one isn’t a creationist. As we continue, we finally get Newt’s position in his own words:
“I believe that creation as an act of faith is true and I believe that science as a mechanical process is true,” Gingrich said at an afternoon session that preceded a more formal address. “Both can be true. I don’t think there is necessarily a conflict between the two.”
That sounds like he’s declaring theistic evolution as his position. You may disagree, but we find that very acceptable — especially considering the realities of the GOP nomination process. Yes, Newt does a lot of pandering — he has to, he’s a politician — but it looks like he’s not a creationist. We’ll understand his position better if he’s ever asked about teaching creationism in public schools.
There’s much more in the article. If you’re interested in Newt as a candidate, then click over to the Greenwich Time and check it out.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.