[–] [deleted] 2 points 24 points (+26|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

4
3

[–] Subway_Bernie_Goetz 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

The dude was a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins. I think he's got a handle on science.

0
5

[–] psyker63 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Even worse, then. He knows anatomy and physiology, both sourced in the principles of evolution, yet claims not to believe to gain the votes of the stupid. Either he's an idiot or a hypocrite. Or both. I'm betting on both.

5
21

[–] Syndicake 5 points 21 points (+26|-5) ago 

Presidents have to be capable of basic reasoning.

[–] [deleted] 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] MedicalMountainGoat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I would certainly hope so, but it looks like he might have suffered some brain damage along the way.

1
18

[–] Aaaron 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It's a huge problem because it's a complete misunderstanding of the way science works. Science isn't intended to be believed. It's not a belief structure and you should not believe science. Science is a guide to shape what we know. It's not a series of truths it's an idea of what we think we know right now about the universe. To say you do believe or don't believe anything in science is just a swing and miss of trying to understand what science represents.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Acerebral 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Science is not an absolute. It is not intended to be an absolute. It never has claimed to be.

Science is just our best explanation for how the world works based on what we can observe. As such, science acknowledges and celebrates the fact that any scientific fact is merely our best understanding at the moment and any could be overturned with a new discovery.

Furthermore, science is not subject to politics. Politicians may try to cherry pick science for their own goals, but no amount of legislation can invalidate a truth discovered through science. Gravity makes things fall no matter what politics may say. Evolution happens, and is observable (dog breeding anyone?), no matter what politicians believe.

A politician who rejects a fundamental scientific theory is declaring that he rejects science and will inject his own baseless understanding of reality into the political process. This is dangerous as decisions made based on an alternative reality will have unpredictable and possibly damaging effects in actual reality.

2
11

[–] Moonbat 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago 

We have a Department of Education which falls under executive jurisdiction. If a president didn't believe in evolution, while evolution is being taught everywhere in the country (rightfully so, btw), it would seem a matter of course for him to do whatever is in his power to change that. I would, if I were president and they were teaching, say, astrology in schools. And that bothers me, even if nobody has brought it up.

However, even if I had assurances which I believed that he would attempt no such thing, how could I in good conscience vote for somebody for president who is that ... well, stupid? I don't care if he IS a brain surgeon. In fact that reinforces my opinion on the matter. He's a surgeon, with all of that training and know-how, and he still thinks evolution is false. Unbelievable. I've always considered physicians to be glorified auto mechanics rather than actual intellectuals (no offense, doctors). We need better than a mere skilled worker as president, no matter how highly trained he may be.

3
8

[–] Lootaluck 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

It worries me, as evolution is so obvious....Just look at a chihuahua...that things ancestors were fucking wolves

10,000 years from now if you were an archaeologist and you dug up a wolf and a chihuahua skeleton you'd be hard pressed to consider them the same species

It worries me because if you reject evolution, what other science do you reject, geology? Cosmology, I think it speaks to an worldview which rejects empirical evidence and such a viewpoint is not something I want anywhere near the white house

4
-2

[–] Subway_Bernie_Goetz 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

Carson is not denying the concept of evolution. He is denying the Theory of Evolution. He was a fucking neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins. He knows how biology and genetics work. What he disagrees with is the idea that all living things share a common ancestor and that life began with a single cell.

0
5

[–] Lootaluck 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Ok, science specifically has a way to deal with that

Come up with your own hypothesis which better explains the evidence we see before us, or reveal new evidence which suggests the prevailing understanding of evolutionary biology is incorrect.

In some ways this viewpoint coming from a very highly educated individual is far more dangerous than some creationist, because what is says is, I can pick and choose based not on evidence, but my personal beliefs, what scientific conclusions I wish to agree with.

Which fundamentally destroys the entire point of science, if Ben Carson has a better explanation of the origin of the species and evidence to back it up I'd love to hear it, as it stands, coming from an educate individual, this perverts science horribly.

[–] [deleted] 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] Lootaluck 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Well thats a good question.

Here's an answer.

not my own incidentally

A theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement." This is why Newton's Laws of Motion are referred to as laws and not theories. They are expressed with simple equations (like f = ma for his 2nd Law of Motion). Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.

0
3

[–] TheManWhoLaughs 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You misunderstand what the word theory means, in the scientific context. It doesn't mean a guess or simple idea. Gravity is a theory. The Earth orbiting the Sun, theory. The role germs play in sickness, theory. Science doesn't use the word Law anymore because it's a bit disingenuous. Newton's laws of motion are in all actuallity, just theories. Incomplete ones at that. Since science is ever evolving, the word theory is used to describe our knowledge at the moment, always leaving room for more knowledge to be added later.

3
5

[–] nomenimion 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

The danger is that it's stupid as fuck.

0
4

[–] CobaltThoriumG 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Indicates willingness to believe in the stories in his head more than real data. Something similar got us into a war in Iraq.

load more comments ▼ (10 remaining)