Evolution and Elections

David K. DeWolf has an article today on the subject of evolution and its place in the 2008 presidential election:

IT'S THE QUESTION that won't go away. Twice during the Republican presidential debates and once at a forum for Democratic candidates, candidates were asked about evolution. For example, in the California debate all the candidates were asked to respond to the question of whether they believed in evolution. In the New Hampshire debate, follow-up questions were asked of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. At the Sojourners Forum debate, John Edwards was asked, "Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in creationism?"

As several commentators have pointed out, these are trick questions, because "evolution" was never defined. Do I believe that the Corvette has evolved over the years? Yes, I do. Do I think that it evolved by random mutation and natural selection? No, I don't.

Candidates should just start refusing to answer questions that have no bearing on the duties of the president. I've long felt that arguing over abortion at the presidential level is a waste of time since there's little the president can actually do about it. That's even more true of evolution. Decisions regarding how or whether evolution is taught should be left to the local and state level. It's not a presidential decision.


However, the media loves to ask this stuff in the hopes of getting a candidate (especially a Republican) to say something that will make him or her look stupid. If candidates quick answering irrelevant questions, sooner or later the media will get the message and move on to more substantive subjects.


As far as the whole evolution argument is concerned, I expressed my views here.