And this from the guy who is supposedly the voice of reason in the Republican presidential field.
Reason Magazine just released a report of where all of the still-in-the-race presidential candidates stand on the big E issue. As summarized by CBR:
- Mike Huckabee — Rejects evolutionary biology, but says it shouldn’t matter.
- John McCain — Has rejected, embraced, and rejected again intelligent-design creationism.
- Mitt Romney — Believes in evolution. “In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution.”
- Rudy Giuliani — Refuses to say and “successfully discouraged key advisors from speaking to Science about specific issues.”
- Duncan Hunter [Patrick's note: Duncan Hunter is still in the race?] — Told the Creation Studies Institute that he would “support and encourage a more open approach to education in the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution.”
- Ron Paul — Rejects biological evolution as “a theory.”
- Fred Thompson — Has apparently never said publicly either way.
- Hillary Clinton — Believes in evolution.
- John Edwards — Believes in evolution.
- Barack Obama — Hasn’t been quoted on modern biology, but rejects intelligent-design creationism.
- Dennis Kucinich — Hasn’t been quoted on the subject.
- Mike Gravel — Has been rather emphatic on the subject. “My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, they’ve got a mental problem. We can’t afford the psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as I’m concerned.”
But I digress. Some might ask, "Does it matter? Who cares whether or not a presidenti believes in evolution or not?" In and of itself, that question is worth debating. Should evolution be the sole issue one considers in a leader? Of course not. But how the president views science is of momentous importance, now more than any time in recent history.
More in Part 2 to come...