By Jesse Fries
Recent surveys have shown the United States trails mightily in the area of science education. Of our industrialized counterparts we rank near the back of the pack. Nowhere is this more apparent than it is in the current crop of presidential candidates who refuse to change their pre-conceived notions on evolution and climate change. The fossil record clearly indicates that we have evolved. Many religious individuals and leaders have been able to accommodate scientific discoveries without sacrificing their religious beliefs. However, Republican candidate Mike Huckabee and former candidates Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback refuse to believe the basic theory: that we do change over time because of environmental factors. Even more candidates refuse to acknowledge that climate change is one of the most important challenges facing our nation going forward. All candidates support some kind of action, but do not feel that the issue should be a focus. The Democrats advocate reducing the 1990 levels of carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Republicans have no goal like this, but do advocate reducing emissions using a cap-and-trade system. Recent images, scientific evidence and studies have proven the world is warming. By choosing to ignore melting ice caps and rising temperatures, the U.S. is taking a backseat on an issue when it should lead. Polar ice caps are melting, seas are rising and presidential candidates still refuse to change their opinion that climate change is not an issue warranting immediate attention.This shielding is reminiscent of Irving Janis’ theory of “groupthink” in which leaders use “mindguards” to shield themselves from information that differs from what they would like to hear. Mindguards can encourage feelings of invulnerability, as one hears only what they want to hear. These ideas can be dangerous as they can lead to policy based on opinion instead of fact.The failure of these candidates to allow evidence to change their pre-conceived notions shows a leadership flaw that could have ramifications in other aspects of the political spectrum. In hindsight, it is quite apparent the Bush Administration felt Iraq and Saddam Hussein were harboring terrorists and had developed weapons of mass destruction. When evidence contradicted this, the administration did not allow facts to alter their notions. Comparing evolution and war is surely a stretch. However, if these candidates do not allow scientific facts to change their ideas regarding issues such as evolution and climate change, from what else will they shield themselves?Most of all this shows disparity between scientific knowledge and religious dogma. While our nation’s values are steeped in religious thought, we cannot elect presidents who allow dogma to color our ideas regarding scientific advancement and hope to remain competitive in a global marketplace. This illustrates the need for scientific curriculum to be enhanced rather than politicized. Our nation is one of innovation, but without strong education we will fall behind. Strengthen science at home, allow our students to compete, and teach that facts cannot be ignored. Presidential candidates should be educated enough to know that evolution is proven. Religion is wonderful, but there are certain things that must be seen as truth.
