-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Texas Governor and GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry got heckled yesterday outside a cafe in New Hampshire. “Hands off Medicare,” a couple folks in the crowded chanted.
Before the heckling started, Perry answered a question from a child about how old the Earth is. It swiftly degenerated into a political “gotcha” moment when the kid’s mother (I’m guessing), standing right behind her son, instructed him to ask Perry why the Texas governor “doesn’t believe in science.”
My advice to the woman: Ask the question yourself. Or, if you do intend to instruct your kid on what to ask, don’t do so in front of a line of cameras. It’s bad form.
I’m all for asking tough questions. I don’t like it when candidates get indignant over a legitimate line of queries. But this crossed the line into pathetic territory.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/19/ask-perry-why-he-doesnt-believ
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- What’s in a Name?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jocon307 | 8.19.11 @ 1:51PM
OK, that video made Perry look nothing but good.
But the ad, super go-bots?
I mean, far be it from me, but that was like I was thrown back through time to the 1970s.
Are these current toys?
Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 1:58PM
Science unfortunately has been taken over by progressives who use it to justify its social justice programs. It has become more a belief system, like a religion, that an objective view of material reality.
Will | 8.19.11 @ 2:35PM
I hope a Perry handler reads this.
Next time someone from the Left asks why he "hates science", he should start citing the scientific facts of fetal development -- heartbeat at 8 weeks from conception, for example -- and then ask why the President hates science? Why is commenting about abortion "above his paygrade"?
They want to use "science" as a political cudgel? Bring it on. Let's talk about what transpires in the womb and how the Left chooses not to defend that life.
Perry is the only candidate out there with the cajones to make the case. He should do so.
simon templar| 8.19.11 @ 2:37PM
Excellent point, Will! Yes, they use science when it suits them. Not many people noticed this.
simon templar| 8.19.11 @ 2:35PM
That was a great, simple, and honest answer. Well handled, Mr.Perry!
They teach both, no one knows how life began, evolution does indeed have some gas in it, but it is a theory not a fact. He showed a great deal of respect to the kid and encouraged him to learn about both of them and seek his own conclusion. Brilliant.
Stuart Schneiderman | 8.19.11 @ 2:41PM
Readers might be interested in my comments on this topic, in my post entitled: Does Rick Perry Believe in Science?: http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/
Oldefarte| 8.19.11 @ 4:07PM
I certainly don't think he became INDIGNANT. He should have instead looked directly into the woman's eyes and asked her, STOP HIDING BEHING YOUR CHILD AND ASK THE QUESTION YOURSELF!!!!!!!!
Lesser Weevil| 8.19.11 @ 4:09PM
It wasn't a fair or a serious question, and Perry probably handled it as well as humanly possible under the circumstances. But the line that evolution is "just a theory," "has gaps," etc., is fundamentally evasive and leaves conservatives who use it in a vulnerable defensive position. Science tries to increase our knowledge of how the world around us works, and the only valid test of a scientific theory is its usefulness for this purpose. For working biologists today, evolution *is* a useful theory, but if someone came along with something better, they would drop it as quickly as phlogiston theory. There is no reason why conservatives, even religious fundamentalists, should get bent out of shape about this. Religion and science address different questions and have no inherent conflict. The real problem comes in when people misapply science outside of its bounds and treat it as a substitute religion (as exemplified by the Mom's demand to know why Perry doesn't "believe"). I wish that conservatives would school themselves on this issue. The people who ask whether a candidate "believes" in evolution are showing gross ignorance of both science and religion and should be called on it. And while I am wishing, instead of saying "let's teach both creationism and evolution," how about a movement to teach the philosophy of science and the proper limits on its application?
Al Adab| 8.19.11 @ 4:36PM
Hia answer, and ours, should be, "We do believe in science, not as a god but as the testing by experimentation, of theory and hypothesis." Properly understood, speciation through natural selection remains an unproven theory as no known case of such speciation exists. Microbiology raises serious questions about the viability of Darwinian evolution. As to the school curriculum all competing theories should be taught both for their intrinsic value and for historical perspective. We do teach Ptolemy still do we not?
Lesser Weevil| 8.19.11 @ 5:21PM
Al, I'm not sure that our schools are up to teaching *one* theory well, let alone all competing ones. People react so strongly to evolution (on both sides) because it has come to represent far more than just a scientific theory. Given how charged the topic is, it would be great if the curriculum included a segment on the history of scientific theories, how they are formed and how they get replaced, and also on the misuses of science (plenty of fodder for both sides of the ideological divide there!). But the "let's teach all theories" approach just leads to a dumbed-down, mushy presentation, and you are kidding yourself if you think it will cure the problem of indoctrination in the classroom. If you have kids in school, go take a look at their history books. They are practically unreadable, because of the relentlessly "inclusive" approach.
Interested Conservative| 8.19.11 @ 5:08PM
Actually,the entire premise is incorrect. You shouldn't "believe" in science. It simply states things as they are, based on the scientific method. Some of science is still a mix of fact and theory (i.e. evolution) and some is much more established fact than theory (i.e. gravity).
Some of it never was science (see Lysenkoism), and some of it is less convincing as later science surpasses it (Freud, anyone?).
Finally, much of it is more or less corruption of terms or simply misleading advertising - "scientific Marxism", political science, even creationism. These may all have their merits, but not remotely in the scientific arena.
Gov. Perry wins this round since the "mother" didn't seem to have any interest in science to begin with.
Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 5:35PM
An example of a non-science is Climate Science, which does not use the scientific method as all, but uses unproven computer models and speculation. It is more akin to the economic models the Feds use, and the dependence of these brought down our economy.
Interested Conservative| 8.19.11 @ 8:13PM
Actually, it's a good example of the corruption model. There is a climate science, akin to or an offshoot of meteorology, but the data or factual basis of meteorology, and the theories of climate change don't come close to justifying the conclusions and proposed actions of the "believers".
They've skipped a few steps, and added some unnecessary ones to the scientific method, all of which takes their views pretty far outside of what could be considered scientific.
burt| 8.19.11 @ 10:46PM
Who got indignant ? The obama nutter using her kid as a political prop?
Perry handled the situation with calm and cool and very Presidential .