Denial of The Theory of Evolution Brings Huckabee’s Qualification For Presidency Into Question

Posted on December 17, 2007 by Mike Bock

Someone said, “Huckabee has a right to believe whatever he wants to believe about evolution.” Interesting thought. But it seems to me, however, Huckabee, himself, generally would reject this notion. Huckabee, a Baptist preacher, would disagree with the assertion that a person has a right to define his or her own truth. Huckabee believes in revealed truth and firmly rejects the notion that a person has license to determine, on his or her own, what is right and what is wrong.

Our constitution gives us the right to think as we want and to believe as we want. We are free to think in error. But every rational person wants to think in ways that are based on truth. The thought provoking question to consider is: How do we know the truth? Huckabee’s answer is that truth is revealed in the Bible and his reason for rejecting the theory of evolution is because he feels it is a theory that disagrees with truth revealed in the Bible.

Recently, Huckabee was asked about evolution, and he replied, “I’m not sure what in the world that has to do with being president of the United States.” But Huckabee, by denying the validity of evolutionary theory, is expressing a view of truth that is very much out of the mainstream. Any idea a presidential candidate advances, particularly those out of the mainstream, should be justified by the candidate. His view of evolution raises important questions that should be asked of every presidential candidate: In general, what is the basis for your thinking? What is your basis for knowing the truth?

Huckabee’s reasoning that the truth of evolution is determined by the Bible raises a legitimate question as to what other ideas Huckabee would advance based on the Bible. The Bible, for example, says a lot about Israel. Does Huckabee, I’m wondering, have an understanding of Bible truth that, if elected president, would drive his middle east policies and would drive the formation of U.S. policy toward the contemporary state of Israel?

Huckabee, in talking to Chris Matthews said, “If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that.” His religion teaches that a person has a choice whether to believe in God or not, whether to believe in miracles or not, whether to believe the Bible or not. Huckabee projects the idea that just as a person has a choice whether to believe in the truth that God exists or not, a person has a choice whether to believe in the truth of the theory of evolution or not.

To develop this idea of choice, Huckabee wants to advance what is advertised as a competing theory to evolution — The Theory of Intelligent Design. But what is clear is that what Huckabee advances as a competing scientific theory is not a competing scientific theory at all. Huckabee is not advancing the theory because he understands the science involved. He is recommending that Intelligent Design curriculum be added to the public school’s science curriculum, not to improve science education, but, so that students studying science will be influenced by creationists’ views.

What is missing in Huckabee’s view of evolution is an appreciation for how strong evolutionary theory is, how well it has held up, and how useful it has been in guiding scientific advance. Evolution is not simply a whimsical idea; it is not “just a theory.” It is a powerful and useful guide that continues to help increase a scientific understand of our natural world. Since the time it was articulated in 1859, there have been zillions of scientific discoveries. Certainly Darwin knew nothing about DNA, cell chemistry, microbiology. New scientific discoveries have only strengthened the conviction of scientists that the basic theory of evolution is true. How many scientific ideas that were supported by the scientists of 1859 are still supported by scientists of today? It is wrong to advance the idea that a mainstream scientist can simply choose a theory to guide his or her scientific work — like choosing an automobile. Evolutionary theory through almost 150 years of scientific investigation is still the established theory of science and there are no reasonable alternatives on the horizon that dispute it.

Huckabee does a great disservice by saying that he thinks the theory of evolution is not true. He does a disservice to his faith, because his evolutionary views are a discouragement to truth seekers. As a Baptist preacher, he should be lifting up the spiritual truths of the Bible that inspire individuals to service, to problem solving, to goodwill, to brotherhood, and that show the way to peace. Instead, by denying evolutionary theory and making cracks about humans not coming from monkeys, he is contributing to a negative and wrong stereotype of what it means to be a person of faith.

Huckabee’s denial of evolutionary theory also is a great disservice because it champions a wrong notion about scriptural authority. Islam also has scripture. And Islamic radicals tell their children that the literal words of their scripture should guide their thinking and their behavior. Shouldn’t a president champion the idea that the authority for knowing truth is judgment and reason, not scripture?  Yes, our authority to discern authentic inspiration goes beyond what is rational.  I know that Mozart is inspired through a higher reasoning that transcends the reason that evaluates a tax plan., but a president must champion the rational.  A rational approach is the only hope we have to move toward a positive future.

Huckabee and all presidential candidates should be emphasizing the words in the Bible that say, “Come now and let us reason together.” Reasoning together means that together there is an honest commitment to finding the truth and to solving problems. Isn’t the thinking that finds truth and solves problems, the thinking that can be quantified, scientific thinking? We need a commitment to scientific and objective thought — and to a process that emphasizes reasoning together.

Huckabee seems a well meaning person, but it is not helpful for a person of stature to advance the notion that truth is divorced from reason. We can’t expect to have much of a future if, as a nation, we simply believe to be true whatever we want to believe to be true. In addition to wanting to think that the theory of evolution is not true, that our ancestors were not apes, etc., people want to believe all sorts of things: smoking cigarettes is not harmful to one’s health, the holocaust didn’t happen, tax cuts actually increase tax revenue, increased military spending is the way toward world peace. It is important that you do not take any compromises with your health. Visit Legacy Healing Tampa to get the experts get through the tough process of recovering. Wasn’t the whole Nazi movement based on crazy ideas — ideas that would never have withstood any legitimate process of thinking — that, for whatever reason, millions of people wanted to believe were true? If the authority for what we think is true boils down to what amounts to wishful thinking, we are in big trouble.

Our whole country and our whole world needs to commit itself to finding and living according to truth. The discussion about evolution will disappear, again, but it will have been a useful discussion if it encourages the important questions about truth: How do we know truth? What is the authority for truth?

We need a president who can lead us into a better future. For Huckabee to show he is the one to help us get to a better future, he needs to show that he is a man of reason, not that he is a person of narrow religious views. Presidential candidates must show that they are bound to the authority of reason. But Huckabee’s evolutionary views do not appear to be based on the authority of his own thinking and analysis, but rather, it seems to be based on the authority of scripture and his religion’s traditional understanding of truth.

By taking a stand on the nation’s stage that he denies the truth of a theory for which there is universal scientific consensus, Huckabee is showing us a little bit about how he thinks, how he knows the truth. At the very least, it seems clear that Huckabee’s thinking is greatly influenced by his religion. What influences the way a president thinks is an important matter. His stand against evolutionary theory makes me wonder if, to determine what is true, Huckabee as president would rely on what might be called religious thinking, rather than relying on scientific thinking. His denial of evolutionary theory, to me, puts his qualification for the presidency into question.

Posted in M Bock | 17 Comments

The Montgomery Democrats Decide to Suppress Democracy — Just Like the Republicans

Posted on December 14, 2007 by Mike Bock

Big meeting last night at the Montgomery County Democratic Party’s Headquarters. The party endorsed primary candidates for the Ohio House and the Ohio Senate. At the previous meeting in October, my motion to discontinue the practice of making early endorsements was soundly defeated, so this action by the party last night, though depressing, was not surprising.

I’m sort of a newcomer to all this — I was elected to the Central Committee in 2006 — I’ve had a lot to learn about how the party actually works. I’m learning that the Selection Committee is the key committee of the county party organization. All of the key people in the party are members of the Selection Committee and it is this committee that actually chooses candidates to be endorsed. I’ve never seen any decision by the Selection Committee ever be overturned.

At every monthly meeting, the Executive Committee meets at 7:00 PM and reviews the evening’s agenda and, by vote, makes specific recommendations to the Central Committee which meets at 7:30 PM. The Central Committee, the official legislative body of the group, always agrees with the Executive Committee. It is an organizational structure that would have pleased Joe Stalin, because control of important decisions is condensed to only a few people. And of those few people, one person, the chairperson, usually has disproportionate power.

At the Executive Committee Meeting last night, I moved that the endorsements for primary candidates be delayed one month until the January meeting so that the endorsements would be made after the filing deadline for primary candidates, which is January 4.

My argument to the Executive Committee to delay endorsement was the same as before. I said that the Democratic Party should take no actions that would give the appearance that, in any way, it wanted to suppress democracy. I reminded the group that the Republican Party had made endorsements in July and had been roundly ridiculed for their antidemocratic action by the Dayton Daily News in an editorial illustrated by noted cartoonist, Mike Peters. (I made a post in July, “Montgomery County Republicans Take Action That Effectively Suppresses Grassroots Democracy,” that printed the Peter’s cartoon and quoted excerpts from the DDN editorial.)

I said that the hallmark of the Democratic Party should be the fact that we are the party of the people, that we are the party of democracy, and that waiting another month to make endorsements would probably not impact who the endorsed candidate would be anyway.

My argument would have made a lot of sense if, in fact, endorsement was the issue. But endorsement is not the issue. The reason the Executive Committee would not delay its endorsements until our next meeting is the fact that the central issue is not who to endorse. The central issue is how to suppress the primary process. If endorsement was delayed until after the filing deadline, then all interested candidates necessarily would have already filed and their names already printed on the primary ballot. As it is, even though would-be candidates have already circulated petitions and are prepared to officially file, candidates have been waiting on the party’s endorsement and, because of the party’s endorsements last night, most un-endorsed candidates simply will drop out and will not make an effort to run as un-endorsed primary candidates.

The discussion in the Executive Committee confirmed my view that this process should not be call a process of endorsement at all, because after all, what difference could it possibly make to delay an endorsement for a few weeks? What this process should be called is a process of discouragement. The Party simply doesn’t want more than one Democratic candidate in each primary race. And therefore, all potential candidates, other than one, are discouraged from filing. It is really sort of amazing. Of course, not all un-endorsed potential candidates drop out and I hope that a few can be convinced to stay in the race. I told the Executive Committee that I, for one, intended to telephone each person who has petitions for office in circulation and urge him or her to stay in the race.

It seems to me, the whole reason why a primary system for candidate selection was set up in the first place was to help political parties give their constituents more choice. In our Executive Committee meeting, I expressed that idea and in the discussion that followed, one Executive Committee member made a comment so amazing I wrote it down: “The time to make that choice is in the general election, not the primary.”

I said that I felt strongly that taking action designed to suppress primary activity was against the values that most Democrats believe in, and that if we were to act as a representative body we needed to take those actions that would represent the values of most Democrats. I said I was trying to speak up for — as Dean had said — “the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”

Most of the Executive Committee members attending the meeting are also members of the Selection Committee and were involved in making the endorsement choices. I was asking them to change their minds, but they were set in their decision, and, my motion went nowhere. There were several tepid “Ayes” voting to accept and a roaring “No” voting to reject.

Posted in Local/Metro | 4 Comments

The Montgomery County Democratic Party Endorses Primary Candidates

Posted on December 13, 2007 by Mike Bock

The Montgomery County Democratic Party this evening, at its Central Committee Meeting, in separate unanimous actions agreed to endorse all of the primary candidates recommended by its Selection Committee. It was reported that at the Selection Committee Endorsement Meeting there were 47 members who voted on the endorsements.

The Central Committee was acting on recommendations from the Executive Committee. The issue of the timing of endorsements had been discussed at the last Executive and the last Central Committee meeting in October and a motion to delay endorsement had been defeated at that meeting. This issue of delaying endorsements was raised again at this evening’s Executive Committee and, again, by a large margin the Executive Committee defeated a motion to delay. The deadline for candidates to file is January 4.

The MCDP voted to endorse the following candidates as Democratic candidates for the following offices: 36th Ohio House District, Chuck Norton; 37th OHD no endorsement; 38th OHD, Susan Lemish; 39th OHD, Clayton Luckie; 40th OHD, Roland Windburn; 6th Ohio Senate District, John Doll. In addition, the party endorsed John Froelich for judge (I didn’t catch the court). The MCDP made no endorsement for anyone to fill the Office of Coroner.

Most interestingly, the Selection Committee made no endorsement for either the 3rd U.S. House District or the 8th U.S. House District — the two House of Representative Districts in Montgomery County. At the Central Committee Meeting, MCDP chairperson, Mark Owens, indicated that Jane Mitakides had recently expressed an interest in becoming the Democratic Party’s candidate for the 3rd U.S. House District. He invited Ms Mitakides to the platform and she spoke, I thought, convincingly and well. But the Central Committee, by vote, determined to keep the primary candidate selection process open and chose not to endorse anyone for the 3rd U.S. House District — until after the January 4th deadline to file.

After the October meeting, I made this post: The Mission of the Democratic Party Should Be to Empower Democracy to Work
Earlier in October, I made this post: “The Big Questions Facing Our Democracy Are Too Important To Allow Political Parties to Decide”

Posted in Local/Metro | 3 Comments