Monday, February 23, 2009

Bobby Jindal Discussion at Volokh Conspiracy

There is a discussion of creationism sympathies in government over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Randy Bennett writes:

Republicans be warned: No demonstrably creationist politician will be elected President of the United States.

I am not sure this is as hot-button an issue for the Republicans as is thought here. Yet. Jindal didn't have trouble getting elected. Neither did W. The public was well-aware of their sensibilities long before they got elected.

Silicone Valley Redneck writes:

Bible-thumping churches offer comfort in hard times; biology doesn't. When predicting which way the electorate will jump, something to believe in is a safer bet than something that's aligned with the facts. And keep in mind: many of those who most vociferously mock religious Republicans harbor creationist beliefs of their own. Listen to some of these people talk about Nature, and how everything in Nature must have some beneficial use to us if only we had the wisdom to find it, or how the answer to every problem lies in turning away from Technology and looking in Nature. Dress up creationism in pseudo-pagan language, and they just eat it up.

I tend to agree, especially after I found out that the Louisiana senate vote was 94-3 in favor of the "academic freedom" bill. I also agree with the other sentiment about the greens. It is amazing how many people absolutely decry any talk about inequalities in humans, when evidence abounds that there is such, most of which is regional and accords with selective pressures (e.g. people of African descent tend to get hypothermia and frostbite more easily in the arctic circle, people of European descent tend to get heat stroke at the equator). Men and woman are different, too, but in different ways.

2 comments:

  1. And keep in mind: many of those who most vociferously mock religious Republicans harbor creationist beliefs of their own. ... Dress up creationism in pseudo-pagan language, and they just eat it up.

    I've even noticed that sort of sentiment on ostensibly scientific nature shows about different species. In particular I remember one documentary on sea turtles using language to the effect that, because they lived near so much water, they evolved flippers and abandoned the land. The narrator made it sound like this was some sort of conscious decision.

    I was a creationist at the time, and I remember thinking, "even the evolutionists feel the need to posit some intentional creative force behind nature."

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is true. Even the National Geographic specials on evolution a few weeks back sort of put evolutionary processes in these terms. So much so, in fact, that I found it almost fell into the category of "biological determinism." As humans, we seem to want to do this to make things more personal.

    ReplyDelete