It's not often that there's good news coming out of the Republican Party -- for science in general or for evolution in particular. That pattern was broken on Aug. 18, when GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman took to Twitter to announce: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."
As the head of The Clergy Letter Project, an organization of more than 13,000 clergy and 1,000 scientists who promote the teaching of evolution -- and work for a nuanced understanding of the relationship between religion and science -- I was delighted and immediately thought that I should do a profile of Governor Huntsman for my HuffPost series "Profiles in (Evolutionary) Courage."
I never thought that it would be all but impossible to write such a piece. But now, well over a week later, and without anyone in the Huntsman campaign willing to return phone calls or emails, I've come to the conclusion that I cannot write what I intended. Instead of learning more about Huntsman and what drives his respect for science, I'm beginning to understand why his campaign is mired in last place amid a non-distinguished field. As of today's Real Clear Politics poll, Huntsman's support is running 10-fold behind Rick Perry's (20 percent to 2 percent), significantly behind Michele Bachmann's (9 percent to 2 percent) and even a bit further behind the non-candidacy of Sarah Palin (11 percent to 2 percent). Amazingly, even Herman Cain's polling numbers (5 percent) are two and a half times better. Herman Cain!
Please don't misunderstand me. I recognize that I'm not a major media figure. Indeed, I recognize that I'm not even a minor media figure. However, the pieces I write for The Huffington Posttare well read and receive hundreds, and often thousands, of comments. To quote Huntsman, "call me crazy!" but I thought that a positive piece elaborating on his tweet would be seen as a positive bit of media attention. Apparently not.
My calls to his campaign merely yielded a referral to an email address. My emails to his campaign remain unanswered. In an attempt to work a back channel, I contacted Eric Holcomb, the Chair of the Indiana Republican Party. Eric immediately responded enthusiastically and said that he would pass my message along to friends in the Huntsman campaign. Although I'm confident that he did so, no one has gotten back to me.
So, after more than a week of phone calls and emails, I've been unable to have any questions answered. My efforts have not generated a single acknowledgement that I even exist. Well, that's not exactly true! About 10 hours after sending an email to a generic address on the Huntsman website, I received three copies of a solicitation from the Republican Party of Pennsylvania. Coincidence? Could be, but I doubt it.
The thing is, exploring what brought Jon Huntsman to his position on science, a position so dramatically at odds with the rest of his party, is not a trivial matter. Scientific knowledge need not -- and should not -- be a political issue and yet it has become just that within the Republican presidential field.
Huntsman himself explained the importance of science to Jake Tapper on ABC's This Week on the Sunday following his tweet:
The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party -- the anti-science party -- we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.The Republican Party has to remember that we're drawing from traditions that go back as far as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, President Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush. And we've got a lot of traditions to draw upon. But I can't remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a party that was antithetical to science. I'm not sure that's good for our future, and it's not a winning formula.
Huntsman is absolutely correct. It is neither good politics nor good public policy for one of the country's major political parties to shun science. Study after study has reached two consistent conclusions: First, the United States continues to lose its scientific edge. Second, the economic consequences associated with our collapsing scientific infrastructure are huge.
Evolutionary theory is as well understood a scientific theory as any and far better than most. Rejecting it on political grounds in an attempt to pander to a small but very vocal subset of the population that believes evolution and religious conviction cannot be compatible is a disgrace, and it distorts the public's understanding of what science actually is.
I am absolutely delighted that Jon Huntsman has opted to clearly state his support for both science and evolution, and I wish I could have been in a position to more fully explore the reasons for his actions. Given the current nature of the Republican Party, it was courageous of him to be as outspoken as he has been. However, if he has any hope of moving up from last place in the race, I suspect that his staff is going to have to be more willing to respond to requests for information about his positions. And since any campaign staff ultimately takes its orders from the top, I can't help but wonder about the direction Huntsman is providing.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Peace Breaks Out in the War Between Religion and Science
Jon Huntsman Blasts Rick Perry Over Evolution, Climate Change ...
Rick Perry Jon Huntsman Evolution Dispute May Widen GOP Split
Jon Huntsman believes in evolution and global warming, so can he ...
Huntsman on Evolution? 'Call Me Crazy' - NYTimes.com
Huntsman Slams Perry on Climate and Evolution: We Are “On the ...
Well said. The republican party as already become the 'Anti- Science' party, because it has become a fundamentally Religious party, and the politicians seeking a committed voting block use Religion as a carrot on a string.
It one of the reasons Huntsman won't gain any traction.
(Also, I think that you will also find many other scientists who think that life is not all that rare of an event in the universe.)
Organic Chemistry, which leads to, Biology. For a long time Scientists didn't or couldn't make that connection. Until scientists at the University of Manchester not only figured it out, but synthesized RNA only using the basic chemistry of the universe.
The first organism needed two things, a Cell Membrane (a container), and some Genetic material that allows for inheritance.
For a long time Scientists thought DNA was the star of that show and RNA was the bit player, but thats now inverted. RNA is more important, it also has a genetic code written with the chemicals A, C, G, and U and chemically, each of these building blocks is made of atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and hydrogen. (some of the basic building blocks of the universe) RNA is used to make up the proteins which make up the cells in our bodies, and helps make our Skin, Hair, Brain Cells and Heart.
But, just because we've got flower, eggs, milk, water and butter, just mixing those ingredients together won't give us a specific pastry, there's gotta be some recipe to it.
What you think is part of the problem. You don't appear to know one of the fundamental tenets (or non-tenets?) of evolution: That evolution has nothing to say directly about the causes of life. It only says what happened AFTER life formed.
How life got here may be stated with evolution as support, but wishing to attack evolution, logically, you must start with what it purports to claim: that the existing life we see evolved from other EXISTING life. Darwin himself stated this. Talknig about how life got here, though often related to and thought of as belong to evolution theory is only ancilliary related.
And I echo what others have said that also misunderstood and often misrepresented. When Darwin exposed his theory, it wasn't complete. It couldn't be because nothing is. It is a work in progress like all things and, true to a tenet of science in general, is subject to change and revision. This is why science is NOT a religion (as has been claimed). It does not have dogmas - at least for long. Those who attempt it can be and are exposed over time.
btw, the irony of what I said about a facet of religion being about stability is not lost on me. But I think you get the general idea that its about the mind of the person thinking this way, not so much the actual facts on the ground which show that religions do change with the times..
Can't remember a time? How about the last 30 years or so, ever since Reagan got elected? Chris Mooney details all the evidence in "The Republican War on Science"... very good read.
"Courageous" when it is just plain common sense?? This is a clear indication of how low the process of dummying-down the culture has reached.
How utterly sad when openly accepting that which is utterly accepted is seen as courage when uttered to the unaccepting.
Yet it can be amusing to watch supposed TV weather (and hair style) experts going some length to avoid mentioning climate change or global warming. They say, "Strange weather!" "Never seen such unusual weather." One can almost watch them play dumb. But they're not being ironic. Playing dumb is what they're paid to do.
Arrogance, Selfishness, and Egoism are the qualities the Republicans look for.
The odds are stacked heavily against Huntsman. Playing against the `Anti-Science` ideology is a trump card that must be used aggressively, and consistently. It will be good for America if he succeeds. My best wishes are with him.
Intelligence & Intellectual Honesty are disqualifying qualities in today's Republican Party.
If left to their own devices, I think I could tolerate either a Romney or Huntsman Presidency.
And that's the reason, besides Mormanism, that neither of them can win their party's nomination.
They are the only two grownups in the Republican party.
And the nomination race has become a "Crazy-Contest" between Bachman & Perry over who can be stupider than the other without going so far over the line, that they would actually alienate their own base.
The wildcard is: how could they govern if either Romney or Huntsman got elected President?
I can't imagine how either of them could/would govern- since they would be at great odds with the asiprations of their own party.
Mr. Romney is not my preferred candidate, but he also is nothing like the boogyman that many want to make him out to be.
Read his Wikipedia bio.
Mr. Romney is really a right-leaning centrist.
But he HAS TO win Republican support in the Primaries - NO MATTER WHAT.
If not; he simply has to drop out.
I am certain he is as honorable & decent as, say Jimmy Carter.
His business career as profiled on Wiki is not as bad as portrayed
His leadership of the 2002 Winter Olympics is regarded as highly successful.
He ran a generally successful term as Governor of Massachusetts, a very liberal state.
But per my query: How could he govern if somehow he was elected President
[UNLIKELY OPTION 1]
He becomes another Teddy Roosevelt
((Reality-Check: Mr. Romney has led a remarkable life, but he ain’t no TR))
Mr. Roosevelt unexpectedly became president after McKinley’s sudden and unexpected death. He then threw the Machine-Politicians into the ditch, and simply took on the role of Supreme Commander of not only the US, but the whole world.
Mr. Romney’s version of this scenario might be to:
simply pay lip-service to the concept of being a ‘true’ Republican- and become an actual centrist President working almost equally with Ds & Rs.
[EVEN MORE UNLIKELY OPTION 2]
After election, Mr. Romney turns the world upside-down by switching parties and becoming a Democratic President.
[OPTION 3]?
I knew it was just political correctness, a casual remark and not a serious statement when only a few weeks later Huntsman stated he'd be willing to serve as Bachman's vice president--even though her ideas are not good for our future, and present a formula for disaster.
When liberals start calling him rational, the RINO and former Obama ambassador knows he's a goner.
Nice work.
many mechanisms in genetics are still unknown, or very recently described, so i would guess [not being a geneticist] that the situation is more complicated than you state.
it sounds to me like a good case for punctuated equilibrium though.
the old, "we can't explain every single thing right this very second and therefore god did it," argument is even less likely today than it was a hundred years ago. a slight flaw in our understanding of genes, a very new science, does absolutely nothing to debunk this one, or any of the other, disciplines that continue to point to evolution.
also, if you double check the origin of species you'll see that Darwin never promised us a generation of Einsteins.
so if you want to get smarter, don't wait on evolution, just keep reading those science books.
C'mon Huntsman, be a man and stand on your principles. Be the Perry with common sense.