There is no organization better suited to advise Presidential candidates on science issues than the Discovery Institute — or so they imagine. They reveal their patriotic willingness to help with this new post at their creationist blog: In Tonight’s Republican Debate, Will Candidates Be Asked for Their Views on Evolution?
The debate was last night, so we can’t tell if they’re posting late or if they were timely and we somehow missed it. Either is possible. Anyway, it was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Klinghoffer begins with an interesting question:
[T]here’s no question that the leading Republican contenders will at some point before long be asked in a debate context if they believe in evolution. What should they say in response?
We don’t think that issue came up last night, but inevitably it will. And yes, we know — Klinghoffer’s question is improperly framed. One doesn’t “believe” in evolution, the way creationists believe in supernatural “explanations.” Putting the question in terms of belief makes evolution sound like a competing faith — which it isn’t. Being a scientific theory, evolution is accepted based on the abundant evidence that supports it, which gives us confidence that it’s an accurate explanation of the origin of species.
Anyway, for laughs, here’s Klinghoffer’s recommended response, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Well, they should tell the truth first of all. Obviously, they shouldn’t pretend to hold opinions, for the sake of expedience. Beyond that, here from Stephen Meyer is a brief response that would be both credible and congenial:
[Discoveroids’ recommended response:] Reporter: “Do you believe in evolution?”
Candidate: “I believe that organisms change over time, but I am skeptical about unguided evolution.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s what we call the micro-macro mambo, described in our Common Creationist Claims Confuted.
Klinghoffer then gives two expanded versions of his recommended response, in case a candidate has the time to make an even bigger fool of himself. The candidate is advised to add:
I know that many scientists in peer-reviewed scientific publications have expressed doubts about the creative power of natural selection and random mutation. I think that in learning about the modern version of Darwin’s theory, students should learn why scientists have these doubts. That’s just a matter of basic scientific literacy.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If that’s not sufficient to demonstrate that the candidate is a complete idiot — which several clearly are — Klinghoffer provides this as additional elaboration:
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories is a matter of basic scientific literacy. And there are scientific weaknesses in modern Darwinian theory.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids have often posted about the alleged weaknesses of the theory of evolution. The last time we wrote about it was Casey: More on Evolution’s “Weaknesses”.
As goofy as Klinghoffer’s post is, it has some value. A sane, educated, and well-advised candidate should answer: “I think evolution is a well-tested, solidly evidenced theory and I accept it.”
But in the campaign headquarters of some Republican candidates, the candidate won’t give that response. Either it’s because the candidate is stupid, or he’s afraid of offending his drooling supporters. So he and his advisers are wondering how to respond to the evolution question. If a candidate latches onto Klinghoffer’s suggested response, then we’ll know, beyond any doubt, what we’re dealing with. So we’re grateful to Klinghoffer for giving us this fine indicator by which to judge the candidates.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.