Yet another GOP candidate rejects modern biology

Way back in May, in one of the more memorable debate moments of the year, John McCain was asked a straightforward question: “Do you believe in evolution?”

It’s the 21st century and McCain is an educated man, so it should have been an easy one, but he’s a Republican, and he needs to appeal to a far-right base that has little use for modern science — so he hesitated. After a pregnant pause, McCain said, “Yes.”

The Politico’s Jim VandeHei opened it up to the stage: “I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?” The camera didn’t show the 10 candidates for very long, but three would-be presidents raised their hand: Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo.

At the time, I was torn. Was it good news that seven in 10 Republican presidential candidates accept scientific reality, or was it bad news that three in 10 presidential hopefuls reject the foundation of modern biology?

As it turns out, though, there was one more evolution-denier on the stage who, for whatever reason, didn’t raise his hand at the time. Ron Chusid directed me to this Ron Paul video, posted to YouTube last week. Here’s the key exchange:

Audience member: I saw you in one of the earlier debates, all of the candidates were asked if they believe the theory of evolution to be true and they had a show of hands, but I didn’t see which way you voted, and I was wondering if you believe it to be true, and should it be taught in our schools. Paul: First, I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I, um, I think it’s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory…. I just don’t think we’re at a point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side.

Yes, in 2007, 10 Republicans were running for president, and four of them reject modern biology.



To be sure, this may seem, at first blush, like a tangential issue. These guys are running for president, not a local school board, so their thoughts on biology aren’t likely to have any real impact on curricula any where in the country.

But I still think it’s relevant. For a presidential candidate, in 2007, to concede disbelief in evolution doesn’t reflect well on their understanding of facts and evidence. If they reject the overwhelming proof on modern biology, how will they deal with evidence regarding global warming? Or stem-cell research? Or a public health emergency? Or any public policy that deals with science?

Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University and chair of the Physics Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, recently had a good op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about science and the presidential candidates in general.

The day before the most recent Democratic presidential debate, the media reported a new study demonstrating that U.S. middle-school students, even in poorly performing states, do better on math and science tests than many of their peers in Europe. The bad news is that students in Asian countries, who are likely to be our chief economic competitors in the 21st century, significantly outperform all U.S. students, even those in the highest-achieving states. While these figures were not raised in recent Democratic or Republican debates, they reflect a major challenge for the next president: the need to guide both the public and Congress to address the problems that have produced this “science gap,” as well as the serious consequences that may result from it. America’s current economic strength derives from the investments in fundamental research and technology made a generation ago. Future strength will depend upon research being done today. One might argue that many key discoveries occurred as a result of importing scientific talent. But as foreign educational systems and economies flourish, our ability to attract and keep new talent could easily erode. Even with a continued foreign influx of scientific talent, it would be foolish to expect that we can maintain our technological leadership without a solid domestic workforce as well. Almost all of the major challenges we will face as a nation in this new century, from the environment, national security and economic competitiveness to energy strategies, have a scientific or technological basis. Can a president who is not comfortable thinking about science hope to lead instead of follow? […] Even if the American public is not currently focused on these concerns, decisions made by the next U.S. president on issues such as climate change, energy research, stem cells and nuclear proliferation will have a global impact. We owe it to the next generation to take ownership of these issues now. In spite of the ambivalence reflected in some polls, there is a popular understanding that science and technology will be essential to meet the challenges we face as a society. When reports began to surface warning that the avian flu might become a threat to humans, for example, everyone from the president down called for studies to determine how quickly the virus might mutate from birds to human beings. No one suggested that “intelligent design,” for example, could provide answers.

Precisely. Science matters — indeed, reality matters — to the nation’s ability to compete in the future.

At this point, only two of the remaining seven Republican presidential candidates (Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul) refuse to accept the cornerstone of modern biology, but that’s two too many.