Three Republican Presidential Candidates Say That They Are No Dinosaurs. Or Was It, That They Don't Believe in Dinosaurs?

My able and politics-obsessed colleague Dave Weigel spent his evening blogging the Republican presidential candidates' debate last night. Weigel noted that when moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates who didn't believe in biological evolution, Congressman Tom Tancredo raised his hand. Blogging on the fly Dave didn't get to mention that two other candidates also professed a disbelief in biological science.

So who were the other two evolution deniers? One would be Sen. Sam Brownback who has the honor of representing a state that has twice tried to ban evolution from its classrooms in recent years. The other was one-time Baptist minister and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

With candidates like these, no wonder that fewer and fewer Americans identify themselves as Republicans.

Comments

Paul | May 4, 2007, 2:52pm | #

I thought the whole anti-darwinism thing was so early millennium.

Good Xtian | May 4, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Enough of the Christian bashing, heathens!

Only stupid Christians [God bless even them! :)] don't believe in dinosaurs. Read about good Christians and dinosaurs here.


Does Jake Boone comment here?
If so, Hi, Jake!

biologist | May 4, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Organic evolution isn't a belief system, it's a set of scientific theories and principles supported by empirical observational and experimental evidence.

That said, I'm glad Ron Paul wasn't one of the "unbelievers" in evolution.

Now, let's ask the candidates if they believe in gravitational theory, and if so, which gravitational theory has had the most profound effect upon their lives.

ktc2 | May 4, 2007, 3:07pm | #

Okay, so 1/3 are complete morons.

Good Xtian | May 4, 2007, 3:09pm | #

Whoops, my link was broke. :)

I'll try again here.

The point is that of course dinosaurs existed. We have their bones. It is quite clear to everyone, except stupid evolutionists [God bless them, too :)], that the dinosaurs failed to survive the great flood. You are all a bunch of smarties, so I'm sure you knew that. :)

Brian | May 4, 2007, 3:09pm | #

The current president is in office due to his belief in an almighty creator so I don't see what's so surprising about it.

ktc2 | May 4, 2007, 3:22pm | #

Yup, and his successor will doubtless be the same.

"I'm voting for him! He believes the same unbelievable nonsense I do!"

Great way to elect an executive by popular delusion.

Bhh | May 4, 2007, 3:26pm | #

This fundy fad can't get over soon enough for me. These things usually exhaust themselves sooner or later right?

Jake Boone | May 4, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Does Jake Boone comment here?
If so, Hi, Jake!

Hi, GX! No time to argue - I'm teaching children that there's no Santa!

ktc2 | May 4, 2007, 3:43pm | #

Good Xtian,

OYG! That link is so funny. LOL. I thought it was satire but they really do believe their nonsense.

It's like a bigfoot website mysterious "tracks", blurry photos and drawing of what somebody saw.

Good Xtian | May 4, 2007, 3:49pm | #

Funny?

mediageek | May 4, 2007, 3:53pm | #

Stating that you "believe" in evolution seems somehow silly to me.

I no more "believe" in evolution than I "believe" in the principles of internal combustion.

Things are either facts, or they aren't.

I suppose one can choose to disbelieve facts, but that would be kind of silly, and might lead to all sorts of bad side-effects, like land wars in Asia.

biologist | May 4, 2007, 3:56pm | #

mediageek:

thanks for the back-up, man

ktc2 | May 4, 2007, 4:03pm | #

But it's not a FACT! It's a THEORY!

So we can not believe it!

Like gravitational theory or atomic theory!

ROFL.

mediageek | May 4, 2007, 4:05pm | #

Biologist-

No problem.

Good Xtian | May 4, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Sure it's funny. Funny like you'll be burning in hell for all eternity funny. :)

Abdul | May 4, 2007, 4:07pm | #

Belief or disbelief in evolution doesn't seem like a relevant criteria for public office. Is the president going to veto laws that support evolution? Is he going to call out the National Guard to get evolution into our schools?

And for those who might say that belief in evolution may be a bellweather for science based policy like global warming or stem cell research funding, I say that's apples and oranges.

We all believe in some superstition or another--feng shui, autism caused by measles vaccines, the Stooges were really better than the Beatles. It's their policy preferences that count.

Seitz | May 4, 2007, 4:08pm | #

Okay, so 1/3 are complete morons.

That assumes the other seven understood the question well enough to answer. I'm not convinced.

Untermensch | May 4, 2007, 4:13pm | #

I thought it was satire but they really do believe their nonsense.

Then you've been duped… Look at the rest of the site. My favorite bit:

"Diamond" Jack Holgroth is a Game Theoretician who currently teaches a course in Advanced Game Theory for Theologians at Fellowship University. He served our country during the Cold War as a Game Theory Tactician for the Department of Defense and single-handedly developed an elegant solution to the "Fisherman's Quandary", a game theory problem that was crucial to the winning of the arms race and that was famously intractable - until Diamond Jack came along. Jack also enjoys vexillology and can signal Bible passages from memory in fluent semaphore.

Edward | May 4, 2007, 4:14pm | #

Fewer and fewer Americans identify themselves as Republicans, but probably more Americans identify themselves as Wiccans than as Libertarians. Is believing that dinosaurs never existed as preposterous as believing that anything remotely resemnbling Libertopia ever could? People who live in glass houses....

highnumber | May 4, 2007, 4:17pm | #

Untermensch,

You're on the list!

mediageek | May 4, 2007, 4:21pm | #

Ah yes, libertarianism.

The only philosophy which states plainly that it doesn't solve absolutely every single problem, yet its adherents are still accused of being utopian dreamers.

Untermensch | May 4, 2007, 4:22pm | #

Does that mean I can expect a personal visit from Urkobold©®™?

juris imprudent | May 4, 2007, 4:24pm | #

...might lead to all sorts of bad side-effects, like land wars in Asia.

Or going against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

juris imprudent | May 4, 2007, 4:25pm | #

Funny like you'll be burning in hell for all eternity funny.

Good Xtian, don't you know that fear is the mind-killer?

Untermensch | May 4, 2007, 4:26pm | #

Is it too late to recant?

Urkobold® | May 4, 2007, 4:39pm | #

Untermensch,

Urkobold has bigger fish to fry right now.
(and Urkobold isn't sure if Untermensch isn't a distant relative. Maybe we'll meet at the family reunion.)

Urkobold IS WARNING H&Rers THAT GEEKY REFERENCES MAY BE PART AND PARCEL, BUT FRESH GEEKY REFERENCES ARE TO BE USED. Princess Bride WAS ALREADY REFERRED TO THIS WEEK. SO WAS Monty Python. FIND SOMETHING NEW.

NO PUNISHMENT - THIS IS ONLY A WARNING.

Timothy | May 4, 2007, 4:44pm | #

I've some indulgences for sale.

VM | May 4, 2007, 4:45pm | #

Shilling for Big H

*transmission cut off. Static.

Untermensch | May 4, 2007, 4:49pm | #

Darn, I was hoping to finally solve the controversy about Urkobold's esact appearance. But perhaps I could not see Urkobold and live to tell the tale...

Untermensch | May 4, 2007, 4:50pm | #

err, exact...

ktc2 | May 4, 2007, 5:27pm | #

Oh no! I've been duped!

Next you'll tell me the theory of gravity is a fact too and I can let go of the ground!

Good Xtian | May 4, 2007, 5:29pm | #

No, no, no. Not duped. Untermennsch is duping you. He made that Wikiedia page as a joke, right, Untermensch?

Dave2 | May 4, 2007, 5:39pm | #

Good Xtian is right, though.

You guys (Ronald Bailey especially) have got a lot to learn about creationism. A lot of hilarious crap to learn.

Lots of young-earth creationists think dinosaurs lived alongside humans (after all, dinosaurs ought to have been created along with the other land animals, on the sixth day of creation). It's the standard view, I think. Some think dinosaurs were destroyed in the flood. Some think they still exist (thanks to baby dinosaurs taken aboard Noah’s ark), and they cite retarded stuff like stories from Pravda as evidence. “Dr.” Carl Baugh claims to have fossils of dinosaur and human footprints together. “Dr.” Kent Hovind runs a theme park called Dinosaur Adventure Land.

It’s a common misconception among educated people, non-Americans, and high-class Northerners (who typically have never dealt with creationists) that creationists have a problem with dinosaurs. On the contrary, creationists are crazy about dinosaurs!

Dave2 | May 4, 2007, 5:44pm | #

Also:

With candidates like these, no wonder that fewer and fewer Americans identify themselves as Republicans.

Given that there's a solid consistent 45% of Americans who think humans were created as-is sometime in the last 10000 years, and given that a 2005 Harris Poll had 70-80% of Republicans denying human evolution, I doubt this is the issue.

juris imprudent | May 4, 2007, 5:53pm | #

FIND SOMETHING NEW.

Careful of what you wish for. I could up and go all Jacques Barzun on you and have you digging up cultural allusions that even Google won't help you with.

And my abject apologies for not religiously following every thread so as to realize that the PB quota had already been used up. Feh!

isildur | May 4, 2007, 5:59pm | #

"And for those who might say that belief in evolution may be a bellweather for science based policy like global warming or stem cell research funding, I say that's apples and oranges."

Not really. If you're willing to ignore solid science, evidence, and fact in favor of your bizarre millenia-old goat-herder-designed superstitions, that suggests a wide range of public policy that you're going to be willing to decide based on your 'feelings', your chosen superstition, or your schizophrenic inner Voice-Of-Jesus.

I'm not comfortable with our executive making decisions based on the voices in his head. I'd rather he make them based on evidence and fact. Regardless of whether we're talking science policy, reproductive policy, or foreign policy.

Urkobold® | May 4, 2007, 6:05pm | #

juris imprudent ASSUMES THAT Urkobold WOULD BOTHER LOOKING UP HIS REFERENCES. THIS SMACKS OF HUBRIS.

THIS DOES MERIT PUNISHMENT.

YOU MUST MAKE REFERENCES TO "BLOSSOM," LIKE "WOOOAAHH" AFTER SOMETHING THAT SURPRISES OR EXCITES YOU.

mediageek | May 4, 2007, 6:56pm | #

"Urkobold IS WARNING H&Rers THAT GEEKY REFERENCES MAY BE PART AND PARCEL, BUT FRESH GEEKY REFERENCES ARE TO BE USED. Princess Bride WAS ALREADY REFERRED TO THIS WEEK."

Uh, actually, I was using the phrase quite literally and not as a reference to Princess Bride.

Urkobold® | May 4, 2007, 7:09pm | #

mediageek,

YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM THE "BLOSSOM" DISCIPLINARY ACTION. HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND.

The Real Bill | May 4, 2007, 7:25pm | #

Not really. If you're willing to ignore solid science, evidence, and fact in favor of your bizarre millenia-old goat-herder-designed superstitions, that suggests a wide range of public policy that you're going to be willing to decide based on your 'feelings', your chosen superstition, or your schizophrenic inner Voice-Of-Jesus.

The person that came up with the myth was a genius. The order of creation is quite good. People believing it today are, well, not geniuses. However, some are quite intelligent. I think some people choose not to question their faith. I was terrified to do so at 18, but I did, and I lost my faith.

If you keep just the beginning of the statement it becomes quite general:

Not really. If you're willing to ignore solid science, evidence, and fact in favor of your bizarre... insert almost any ideological belief here.

A cousin of mine is far stupider than any creationist could be. He's an athiest, but refuses to believe that his distant ancestors were ape-like creatures. He actually says, "I didn't come from no ape." I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard it with my own ears.

juris imprudent | May 4, 2007, 7:25pm | #

THIS SMACKS OF HUBRIS.

Reeks more then smacks; hubris is my brand of aftershave.

And mediageek shouldn't throw such fat, hanging curves , especially on Fridays. Time to drink now.

ktc2 | May 4, 2007, 8:11pm | #

Yes, we should all go the creationism museum!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

We can laugh till we pass out or they throw us out whichever comes first.

Hugh Akston | May 4, 2007, 9:39pm | #

"I'm voting for him! He believes the same unbelievable nonsense I do!"

Isn't this the only reason that anyone votes for anyone?

Jim Bob | May 4, 2007, 10:32pm | #

Satan magicked dinosaur fossils into the ground to test believers' faith. Duh.

Elmo | May 4, 2007, 11:03pm | #

Jim Bob: Satan magicked dinosaur fossils into the ground to test believers' faith. Duh.

No Creationists believe that, but, like Dave2 said above, it's a caricature that is common among people who have had no dealings with Creationists.

Creationists believe in idiotically silly enough things as it is without having to make up beliefs for them. If your aim is to discredit them, instead try explaining as clearly and as accurately as possible what they actually believe.

Jeebus-Go-Round | May 5, 2007, 12:55am | #

Onyate Man

Eat it, heathens!

Untermensch | May 5, 2007, 9:01am | #

Eat it, heathens!

You’d think someone trying to make a fake would at least find out that fossils don’t appear surrounded by packed dirt and looking like prepared specimins in the ground. I’m going to guess that “Stefan” set up that site to see just how credulous some people in fact are. Of course the fact that some religious people believe this obvious hoax (Highnumber, I hope I'm not spoiling another joke!) will be taken as proof by some that all religious folks are stupid and gullible. Sigh...

Jim Bob | May 5, 2007, 11:08am | #

Creationists believe in idiotically silly enough things as it is without having to make up beliefs for them. If your aim is to discredit them, instead try explaining as clearly and as accurately as possible what they actually believe.

How about I make fun of their head-in-the-sand, reality-denying pseudoscientific dogma in the most appropriately hyperbolic and sarcastic manner I can muster? That okay with you? Because they certainly don't need any help from me to be discredited- they do that handily enough by themselves. Such manifestly obtuse people deserve my derision and ridicule, not my calm and reasoned refutation of their nonsense.

By the way, thanks for your insight into what Creationists actually believe. I can't speak for their party line and I don't really give a shit, but I know some cheerful fundamentalist fellows down here in Georgia who will tell you all about how Satan (or God) planted dinosaur fossils into the ground to test their faith.

Elmo | May 6, 2007, 6:18am | #

Dear Jim Bob,

How about I make fun of their head-in-the-sand, reality-denying pseudoscientific dogma in the most appropriately hyperbolic and sarcastic manner I can muster That okay with you? Because they certainly don't need any help from me to be discredited.

If you'd stop lashing out in poorly aimed anger for a moment, maybe you'd see that that is exactly what you are doing. You're going out of your way to try to help them by making up stuff that they don't actually say.

(I am calling bullshit on your claim that you know people in Georgia who think Satan planted dino bones. Care to point to some writings from these people, or are they primitive hillfolk without access to computers? In my years of reading creationists writings I have never encountered people who actually argue that -- although it's a commonly repeated claim among people making fun of creationists -- and frankly I think you are just inventing them to conform to your own knee-jerk, ill-informed stereotypes.)

More over, you think that you're helping them to discredit themselves, but actually you're helping them discredit anti-creationists. "Look," they'll say to their congregations and would-be converts, "the Atheistic Darwinists are ignorant of what we are actually saying. Maybe they don't know everything like they think they do?" You're giving the ammunition.

Such manifestly obtuse people deserve my derision and ridicule, not my calm and reasoned refutation of their nonsense.

You'll notice that I didn't advise calm and reasoned refutations, but rather accurate depictions of their actual beliefs. If their beliefs are truly as nonsensical as you believe (and they are) then that would be the most effective way of damning them, wouldn't it?

But hey, you don't give a shit, so why worry? You know creationists are wrong, even if you don't know what they believe. I mean, that's not the slightest bit similar to the sort of ignorant/arrogant stance that creationists take when claiming that mainstream science is wrong without even bothering to familiarize themselves with it. You are on the right side so you can do no wrong.

Glad we have you on our team.

GILMORE | May 6, 2007, 11:42am | #

ktc2 | May 4, 2007, 3:43pm | #
Good Xtian,

OYG! That link is so funny. LOL. I thought it was satire but they really do believe their nonsense.

Yeah, that site is actually a DEEP parody. It's been misread for years - which is partly what they intended - but some of their pieces are just mind blowingly funny...

like the creation-science fair?

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html

my fave project =

""2nd Place: "Maximal Packing Of Rodentia Kinds: A Feasibility Study"

Jason Spinter's (grade 12) project was to show the feasibility of Noah's Ark using a Rodentia research model (made of a mixture of hamsters and gerbils) as a representative of diluvian life forms. The Rodentia were placed in a cage with dimensions proportional to a section of the Ark. The number of Rodentia used (58) was calculated using available Creation Science research and was based on the median animal size and their volumetric distribution in the Ark. The cage was also fitted with wooden dowels inserted at regular intervals through the cage walls, forming platforms which provided support for the Rodentia. Although there was little room left in the cage, all Rodentia were able to move just enough to ward off muscle atrophy. Food pellets and water were delivered to sub-surface Rodentia via plastic drinking straws inserted into the Rodentia-mass, which also served to allow internal air flow. Once a day, the cage was sprayed with water to cleanse any built-up waste. Additionally, the cage was suspended on bungee cords to simulate the rocking motion of a ship. The study lasted 30 days and 30 nights, with all Rodentia surviving at least long enough afterwards to allow for reproduction. These findings strongly suggest that Noah's Ark could hold and support representatives of all antediluvian animal kinds for the duration of the Flood and subsequent repopulation of the Earth.""

Jim Bob | May 7, 2007, 10:19am | #

Dearest Elmo,

No, I will not provide you with names and addresses of people I have met here in Georgia who have said what I said they said. You want to call them and do a phone interview? Or does it surprise you that not everyone in the year 2007 publishes every opinion they have somewhere on the intertubz? Call bullshit all you want. I acknowledge that what I said is anecdotal, but that doesn't make it any less true. I never claimed that it was an opinion of creationists at large, either.

More over, you think that you're helping them to discredit themselves, but actually you're helping them discredit anti-creationists. "Look," they'll say to their congregations and would-be converts, "the Atheistic Darwinists are ignorant of what we are actually saying. Maybe they don't know everything like they think they do?" You're giving the ammunition.

I didn't say I'm helping them discredit themselves. Take two seconds to read what I said again. They DON'T NEED my help to be discredited. Everything they say is suspect because it rests on questionable principles. None of that pesky scientific method stuff to get in the way, just questionable conclusions stemming from poor reasoning that itself comes from their insistence that observations conform to theory.

You'll notice that I didn't advise calm and reasoned refutations, but rather accurate depictions of their actual beliefs. If their beliefs are truly as nonsensical as you believe (and they are) then that would be the most effective way of damning them, wouldn't it?

That is exactly what I said, Elmo. Gratz on reading comprehension.

Besides, creationists can accurately portray their own beliefs to anyone they want, by themselves, and I don't need to help them. Creationism is not a science, or it's bad science. I would not spend ten seconds arguing with someone who believes the earth is flat, or with someone who believes that since because I cannot show them a real live anti-down quark it must not exist, or with someone who insists that Minkowski spacetime is nonsense.

But hey, you don't give a shit, so why worry? You know creationists are wrong, even if you don't know what they believe. I mean, that's not the slightest bit similar to the sort of ignorant/arrogant stance that creationists take when claiming that mainstream science is wrong without even bothering to familiarize themselves with it. You are on the right side so you can do no wrong.

I said I didn't know what the official creationist party line is, yes. I'm surprised that matters so much to you. The difference between creationists ignoring and ridiculing actual science and actual scientists ignoring and ridiculing creation "scientists" should be obvious. Creationists want facts to fit an agenda. Creation science does not deserve the consideration of rational thinking human beings as a legitimate scientific theory of how the universe came into being and operates because it wants to make predictions a priori true and then find ways to make observations conform to those predictions. That is bad science.

If you think I should know more, send me some links. It seems that this entire argument was predicated on your belief that I just stick my fingers in my ears and go "la-la-la" instead of finding real reasons to doubt creationism- namely, that it is bad science- and also because you wanted to play "gotcha!" with me by pointing out my supposed hypocrisy.

Anyway, while we're here, I'm going to go ahead and accuse you of being a viral creation apologist.

Jason | May 16, 2007, 6:28am | #

The title of the article does not make sense. Disbelief in evolution does not imply disbelief in dinosaurs.

A different but common misconception that I often see is the equating of disbelief in evolution to belief in biblical creationism, another false assumption.