Republican (r)Evolution

(updated twice below)

When a certain debate question is posed to the Republican candidates at whichever forum and among whoever is debating, I will immediately wince, groan, and shake my fists. The question? "Do you believe in evolution?"

First off. I don't necessarily know if this is an appropriate question for presidential candidates. As we did have 15 presidents in and out of office before "On the Origin of Species" was published, the country obviously made it just fine without a president even knowing a clue about evolution. It's not a requirement to know anything about biology to become president and I don't even see this particular question as having any gauge on a person's intellect or mental capacity. (George Washington was smart, yo.)

The other part of me sees this as a huge problem. Even the framing of the typical question is offensive to me. Do you believe in evolution? Like it is something that you can choose to believe in or not. Buy into or not.

Treating scientific concepts this way is weird. We don't do this with everything scientific. Think about how bizarre it would be to disbelieve in gravity. You would be a kook. So what about evolution (and climate change) requires belief any more than gravity would? Both are based on empirical research. Both have yet to be disproven. Both coherently and accurately make predictions. What more does evolution have to do that gravity already did?

I'm still racking my brain to think of why there is this footing for denial of basic science. But then I remember the 2000 and 2004 election cycles. The republican candidates had firmly staked out their evangelical voting base. Appeasing them with anti-evolution seemed to fit logically into the party platform.

But this doesn't fully answer the question as to why the Republicans are denying scientific findings, as something like climate change has no real religious impact. Is it anti-intellectualism? Is it some grand notion that democrats are godless heathens who believe that humans came from monkeys, therefore if they believe in evolution we can't?

As most things are, the answer is more nuanced than I want to pass it off as. Yes, the evangelical wing of the republicans are taking a more theological approach to governance. When this question comes up, it's a great opportunity for a candidate to show that he is one of that pack. (Wolfpack) It's also a somewhat meaningless question, so there is no reason not to take that jump. Another thing that is important to add to this nuanced bowl of answers is that most of these politicians on the stage are lawyers, or businessmen. Neither profession ever requires a daily knowledge of evolution to function. If this question was posed to presidential candidates who previously worked as biologists, I know the outcome would be different.

In the end, I'll sit and grovel when the question comes up. Shake my fists at the computer screen. Babel to myself as if this will somehow impart some evolutionary knowledge. But the fact remains: Some Republicans don't believe science. Well I don't believe in them either.

Update: I enjoyed the questions posed to Hunstman in the GOP debate, tonight. I commend him for standing firm despite his colleagues beliefs. From my impression from their answers, he and Romney seem to be the only two on the stage who take the science behind climate change seriously. Perry skirted the question and erroneously linked (much like Obama has) climate change, regulation, and the employment situation. I will update with video and direct quotes to sure up my paraphrasing of my recollection.

Update II: I do not have a clean video, but here is a succinct transcript pertaining to the GOP debate and science. I love how Perry can't name a single prominent scientist to refute climate change. I'll write a post on their conspiracy theory in regards to climate change, but it is just baffling to me to compare your disbelief in climate science to Galileo's persecution by the Catholic church.

Notes:

Humans did not evolve from monkeys, chimpanzees, or apes. We share a common ancestor.

Yes, I am denying the existence of Republican candidates. They are just theories.

I do admit that the straw man fallacy that I brought up about gravity was unrealistic. I should have raised another biological concept that most people would agree on. Germ theory of disease or Koch's postulates.

Interesting column by Krugman on Republican's denial of science.

Since it was 1859 when On the Origin of Species was published, can someone tell me if that is 14 or 15 presidents?

Update: On the Origin of Species was published November 1859. Lincoln (16th president) was sworn in March 1861. Therefore you can say 14 presidents in and out of office, and one, James Buchanan, was still in office. So 14 in and out of office, and the 15th just in.

References:

Ha, I almost fooled you.