I don't WANT to be writing about Rick Perry, because there's no chance in hell he'll be elected president. And in fact, I don't really need to, because Richard Dawkins summed up the argument perfectly well in a recent article in the Washington Post:
"A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today."
Remember this from the last political cycle?
Besides McCain's smug little face, remember how this was a BIG DEAL? The media went (maybe applaudingly so) wild with it. It was shocking that SO MANY of the candidates raised their hands, not just the lone crazy wolf (we're all thinking Bachmann right now, right?). It was almost as if it was a symbol of pride to be ignorant. Who am I kidding? That's how the GOP is run these days. So it's not surprising, but still disappointing to me, that this election cycle, one of the contenders is so outspokenly against evolution that he's trying to implement teaching creationism IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. C'mon, people. It's not just Texas, either. The key word in Dawkins' piece is "adequate." If you're still fighting this bs fight, you can't be an adequate citizen, and therefore shouldn't be making up policy for the rest of us to follow along with.
Oh Jx, there is a very real chance Rick Perry will be elected President in 2012. For starters, the man flew C-130's. As it turns out, in order to fly one of those things, a person has to understand a little bit about engineering and physics. Hardly a dunce.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is really the only reason I'm commenting. Political Science is my field of expertise. There is no chance that millions of Americans who cannot afford to stay in their homes or send their kids to college because there is no work are going to give a damn about this issue. The defining aspect of the Tea Party is not religion (I'm an agnostic); it is on limiting the power of the federal government.
As an educator myself, I find the lack of political and historical understanding in this nation appalling. Evolution will continue on its path whether the hoi polloi know about it or not. Democracy, on the other hand, does require the average person to be knowledgeable about what is going on in government.
That all said, I do appreciate your advocacy even if I disagree with it. Anyone who puts their thought out there gains respect in my book; the masses that won't do that annoy the hell out of me. Because of that, I'll help you out by asking a question:
why should I care?
Not being snarkish; getting people to care is the hardest part, trust me on that. What real benefits do I gain by actively assuming evolution is a reality? As I see it, whether I believe in Intelligent Design or Evolution or Frisbeetarianism all seems to be the same in my day to day life.
Anyway, don't count Perry out so quickly, the Democratic Party is in no condition to be assuming victory over just about any contender as things stand.