Jon Huntsman tweeted today:
To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
The Washington Post ran a piece today about the differences between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry when it came to believing in global warming:
While apparent front-runner Mitt Romney believes the world is getting warmer and that humans are contributing to that pattern, Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday called that “a scientific theory that has not been proven.” …
At his New Hampshire campaign stop on Wednesday morning, Perry said: “I do think global warming has been politicized. … We are seeing almost weekly or even daily scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing our climate to change. Yes, our climate has changed. It has been changing ever since the Earth was formed. But I do not buy into a group of scientists who have, in some cases, been found to be manipulating data.”
The WaPo piece also included a quote from Huntsman adviser John Weaver, who said, “We’re not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party.”
If expressing an opinion about man-made global warming, an issue scientists don't agree on, is anti-science, then all scientists who express opinions on man-made global warming are anti-science. That makes perfect sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat Huntsman's doing is the same thing McCain did when he dismissed global warming scam critics as "old fogies."
Evidently the septuagenarian senator considered it young and hip to embrace a doctrine that's closer to Druidism than anything resembling science. McCain didn't have a clue what he was talking about, but he knew his position would please the New York Times.
Unfortunately, Huntsman and Romney appear to be about as well informed, and about as scientific, as McCain. While it wouldn't be a deal breaker in a general election considering the alternative, it's hard to see how a Republican is going to be nominated who endorses a proposition that would be as potentially damaging to American culture and the free market as Obamacare threatens to be. Global warming (or "climate change," since the temps won't cooperate) is the Holy Grail for the left. It becomes the excuse for government intervention and collectivism at every turn. The same groups tried to foist global cooling on us in the sixties, and the answer to all our problems then as now was -- you guessed it -- government action geared toward control and command of the economy.
How 'bout if we become the anti-JUNK-science party?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGovernor Perry doesn't appear to believe in evolution, either, so perhaps science is not his strong suit. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would much rather have a president who doesn't believe in evolution than one who thinks that we can keep the polar icecaps from melting by pumping CO2 from coal fired power plants into the ground. Cordially.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you have any actual evidence of that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCertainly Gullyborg, As reported in USA Today, " "I here your Mom was asking about evolution" Perry said today. That's a theory that is out there-and it's got some gaps in it." Perry than went on to say" In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution." " Later in the article, "During his 2010 reelection bid in Texas, Perry said he is a "firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect." Now one can believe in intelligent design and evolution both, as I and many others do. But given his view on evolution as stated in New Hampshire, I would tend to believe that Governor Perry does not. I'm not sure of that, and would welcome evidence to the contrary. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is actually not evidence that Perry doesn't believe in evolution. He said there are gaps - and there ARE gaps. Ever heard of the "missing link"? You know why it is missing? Because it represents a GAP.
Perry believes in intelligent design. Do you know what that means? It does NOT mean that there is no such thing as evolution. It means that there may be such a thing as evolution, and evolution may have a solid basis in science - but unlike a totally secular/atheist view of evolution, intelligent design allows for the belief that a God may have set in motion the events that lead to our evolution as part of a grand design.
You say you believe in intelligent design and evolution both - yet you are quick to assume someone else who believes in intelligent design must not believe in evolution? Sounds to me more like you are just trolling, trying to raise opposition to a candidate you don't like.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I was in college I played Henry Drummond, the Clarence Darrow character in Inherit the Wind. In the final scene, after the trial has ended, Drummond holds the Bible in one hand and the Origin of the Species in the other, weighs them against each, slaps them together and trudges out of the courtroom with both books under his arm.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is a dramatic way of saying that rather than canceling each other out, the two books are complementary and their differences can be reconciled. Or as Drummond says to Brady during the trial, "How do you know God didn't 'spake' to Charles Darwin?"
In fact, we don't. It is a philosophical and scientific argument that properly has no place in a Presidential primary.
You all should watch and consider this from Prageru.com.
I agree with MReed53's point the two doctrines do not need to cancel each other out.
Prager's point is that ultimately it is the person who relies on a G-dless explanation of existence who takes the bigger leap of faith.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBill Wilde,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know whether Perry believes in evolution or not and really don't care one way or the other. He's been my governor for ten years and that hasn't really been a focus of his job.
For the record, I believe the theory of evolution is pretty sound, although there are gaps still to be filled in as with any scientific theory. That is also why it is still considered a theory instead of a law. Theory has a very precise scientific meaning, as does law.
I have a lifelong interest in natural science and my son is a professional biologist, but I don't recall Perry's beliefs on evolutionary theory ever coming up in conversation with him either.
By the way, I may be mistaken on this one, but I think Reagan also had doubts about evolution and harbored some creationist notions. Again, the point is who cares? I would assume every President we had before Darwin believed in creationism, too. So would you reject Washington as a potential Prez?
You do realize of course that we are simply witnessing yet another predictable -- make that inevitable attempt -- to paint any and every Republican as an ignorant cretin whose election will usher us back to the dark ages, before Amtrak subsidies were conceived.
"Global warming" and "climate change" have nothing to do with science and everything to do with socialist ideology. If anyone wants some real science on the subject, I would suggest they check the writings of Dr. Fred S. Singer.
FYI, is the link below what the MSM and the left mean by science? Obviously, it's Obama's idea of what NASA's new mission should be -- and we probably paid for it.
I have an answer, though, to the impending crisis: simply repeat, "Gort. Klaatu, barada, nikto."
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseis Huntsman running for the GOP nomination?? is he a freakin idiot? talk about sealing your fate. he's going to drift down to Gary Johnson numbers. See ya, Huntsman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile it's obvious to anyone who has seriously examined Manmade Global Warming that it's the biggest hoax since Piltdown Man, I have to give major kudos to Perry for having the stones to engage on this issue -- as the establishment media will surely tear him a new one over it.
The more I see of this Perry guy, the more I like him; I can't be the only one. And yet there are those who continue to pine for Governor Uncle Buck of NJ to enter the race. Yawn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore troubling than Governor Huntsman's stance on global warming and other issues is his adopting President Obama's extremely annoying verbal tic of reinforcing one's own argument with phrases like "to be clear." :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI read Perry said he doesn't know how old the earth is?!! HAHA. What, does he think its 6,000 years old!! HAHA. As soon as Palin jumps in, Perry is done. Mitt's going to walk over this field.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedo you know how old the earth is? because expert scientists can only really give us an estimate, and the estimate has changed a lot over time and will probably continue to change.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe earth is at least billions of years old. I do not know of any one who seriously believes it is thousands of years old. HAHA. Mop him up Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne aspect of the evolution question in NH has been completely ignored. Leaving aside what kind of mother uses her child as a political front, exactly how was Perry, or any other candidate, supposed to answer a question like that from a little kid?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs far as the candidate knows, the child may be a home schooler and his parents may fervently believe in creationism. Is the candidate supposed to tell a six or seven year old not to be believe what his parents are teaching him? Regardless of what his personal beliefs may be -- and they are hardly related to the job he is seeking -- I would say that Perry answered the way you would hope any adult would answer a child, which is that some people believe one thing and some people believe another.
Good point, but it is highly unlikely that that mom was an evangelical homeschooler.
Still I loved Pery's answer and do not think it did him any harm.
The criticism I've read is that it is untrue that the TEKS mandate teaching creationism. I googled it and cannot find creationism in the TEKS for TX science. But wasn't that part of the big bru-ha-ha a couple of years ago with the text books is that a nod would be given to those who think Evolution had some flaws?
Even so items in the TEKS are standards required for proficiency in a subject. The teacher may cover other items if they so choose as long as the TEKS minimums are met.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse