Sunday, May 6th, 2007
I have not and will not be following any of the debates for so-called president, but I read that three grown men didn’t get the memo on evolution.
Three of the candidates indicated that they did not believe in it.
None is a front-runner but even so there will be American scientists who will feel deeply depressed that serious politicians in 2007 can be disputing the entire thrust of modern knowledge about how the world was formed and how it, well, evolved.
What does it mean “not to believe” in evolution. This may be the kind of thing that people will often say to express disagreement.
“I don’t believe in _____________” means “I disagree” with it. (In the case of a political debate, I’d have to assume that disagreement is always political.)
But what, then, does it mean to disagree with evolution? “I don’t believe” mixes obstinacy with the inability to supply facts and logic to a claim, especially when the science is both deep and nuanced. What member of the glass-eyed class could stand in front of a crowd and piss off just about everyone with hard-nosed reason? I’d vote for her.