GOP: The Anti-Science Party
September 24, 2011 No CommentsMatt Miller
College of Arts and Science
Class of 2015
Former governor of Utah and GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman attracted attention when he said that the Republican Party was quickly becoming “the anti-science party.” His remarks came after Texas governor Rick Perry expressed serious doubts about the reality of global warming. Speaking to a group of New Hampshire voters in August, Perry called global warming “a scientific theory that has not been proven.” He went on to criticize scientists for using “doctored data” and went so far as to call Al Gore a “false prophet of a secular carbon cult.” In calling the whole idea of global warming “a contrived phony mess that is falling apart,” and implying that scientists studying the phenomenon manipulate the data for financial gain, Perry attempts to deny the fact that support for the theory of global warming is actually increasing among the scientific community as the amount of evidence continually grows.
His views are far from unique within his party. Representative Michele Bachmann called global warming “all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax” in a spot on Minnesota Public Radio last year. In 2009, Representative Ron Paul said in an interview with Fox News, “The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.”
Many of the 2012 GOP presidential candidates have also questioned the legitimacy of evolution as a theory, including Ron Paul and Governor Perry. The anti-science stances seems to be so entrenched in the line-up of GOP candidates, that when Mitt Romney expressed his belief in global warming, Rush Limbaugh predicted the end of his bid for president.
Why does any of this matter? What effect might the GOP’s being “anti-science” have on the American public? The anti-science stance is more than theoretical. Beliefs or disbeliefs in evolution or global warming may not seem to be anything more than personal tenants, but when those opinions translate into actions, they become relevant. Bachmann refused to acknowledge gay bullying that led to a string of teen suicides in the Anoka-Hennepin school district just north of Minneapolis, which lies in her congressional district. Bachmann is a member and close ally of the Minnesota Family Council, a group which released a statement on their website blaming gay rights advocates for the suicides, claiming that those advocates misinform gay teens in telling them that homosexuality cannot be cured. In this instance, Bachmann’s personal belief that homosexuality is wrong has resulted in her pressing for absolute neutrality on the subject of homosexuality in the school district. This policy makes it impossible for the school to offer any sort of helpful counseling for gay teens, since it would involve either telling them that homosexuality is okay (breaking the school’s neutrality policy) or trying to treat them of their “condition.” Bachmann’s personal belief has put the lives of teenagers in her congressional district at risk.
The relevance stretches further still. When Ron Paul was asked about the theory of evolution, he replied that it was “inappropriate [for] the presidency to be decided by a scientific matter.” By saying this, Paul implies that science is an extraneous topic completely unrelated to the presidency. In a rapidly evolving world, science simply cannot be dismissed as irrelevant by the future leader of the free world.
What Americans need in a president is someone who is rational and grounded in reality. The last thing we need is a presidential candidate who tosses aside the idea of evolution as “just a theory…with some gaps in it,” as Governor Perry did. Someone who can disagree with a mountain of scientific evidence does not appear to be proficient in weighing the facts, and then making reasonable decisions based on those facts. When Bachmann said she did not support required the HPV vaccination for pre-teen girls because the vaccines cause autism and mental retardation, she ignored the overwhelming scientific evidence that said otherwise.
Huntsman’s words reflect a growing truth among the Republican Party. As the party rejects scientific knowledge in favor of unfounded personal and religious views, America runs the risk of electing a party that believes common sense is more valuable than expert opinion, a dangerous view to hold in hard economic times.
New York Times: Repulicans against science
News, Online Exclusive