The GOP presidential candidates have been in a race to announce either their acceptance or skepticism of scientific topics like evolution and global climate change. I’ve previously commented on both Michelle Bachmann’s and Rick Perry’s stance on evolution. Both Bachmann and Perry support teaching Intelligent Design Creationism in public schools, and so I’ve dumbed them IDiots. Well, now former Utah Governor and US Ambassador John Huntsman made his position known via Twitter — and you’re in for a surprise!
Huntsman elaborated on his position on ABC’s “This Week”:
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.
I think Huntsman’s correct. Many of the greatest innovations of the last 100 years have come from science. Just think of vaccinations, the moon landing, and the internet. Science and technology hold the key to many of our current and future challenges like climate change, sustainable fuel technology, and economics. But candidates like Bachmann and Perry cast doubt on evolution and climate change not because they have thoroughly considered these topics and any evidence to the contrary. Instead, Bachmann and Perry reject evolution and climate change because they do not like the political or economic implications of these scientific facts. They are anti-science because they don’t want to lose fundamentalist religious voters or upset the business interests that support them.
So, in case you still enjoy all the benefits that science has to offer, here’s what you need to know: GOP presidential candidate John Huntsman supports science and evolution, too. Call him crazy.
Here’s more from the same interview that includes Huntsman’s comments regarding the GOP and science:
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 [Sciences] 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.