I am growing weary of pointing out the stupid things said by Republicans and creationists (there’s considerable overlap), which is like crying, “Look, that lion ate a gazelle!” One gets to a point where it’s neither new nor interesting. But in the interest of documenting the scientific missteps of Presidential candidates, especially when it comes to evolution, I submit for your disapproval this three-minute video of GOP candidate Ben Carson speaking on September 30 at the University of New Hampshire. There’s also a transcript below the video.
Carson’s comments are indented; my gloss flush left. Emphasis (bold) is mine.
Well first of all, you have to hear what I actually believe because the media distorts it enormously for their own purposes. Is there climate change? Of course there’s climate change. Any point in time temperatures are going up or temperatures are going down. When that stops happening, that’s when we’re in big trouble.
Ummm. . . can you get any dumber than that? In fact, we’re in big trouble when average temperatures keep going up, as we know is happening now.
What is important is that we recognize that we have an obligation to take care of our environment. I don’t care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, if you have any thread of decency in you, you want to take care of the environment because you know you have to pass it on to the next generation.
I have to hand it to Carson: he’s said at least one or two good things about protecting the environment (see here, for instance). On the other hand, note his statement about “climate change” above; he also favors the Keystone Pipeline and has called for the government to urge the Environmental Protection Agency to cooperate with business and industy—something the government’s already done!
There is no reason to make it into a political issue. As far as evolution is concerned I do believe in micro-evolution, or natural selection, but I believe that God gave the creatures he made the ability to adapt to their surroundings. Because he’s very smart he didn’t want to start over every fifty years.
Well, cut off my legs and call me Shorty: Carson’s admitting some (micro)evolution here! But once he does that, he’s given away the game, for there’s no essential difference between microevolution and macroevolution. If microevolution goes on long enough, it produces major evolutionary change: for existence, the transformation of ancestral, terrestrial artiodactyls into whales, or early amphibians into reptiles. There’s no given point, though creationists claim there is, where microevolution has to stop because otherwise the changes are trespassing into the bailiwick of macroevolution. And if you look at the fossil record of, say, the evolution of early mammals from reptiles, you see precisely that: there is a continuous and gradual change, with no one point at which you can say, “This is where mammals began.” We see, in fact, fossils that are so intermediate that they are classifiable only as “mammal-like reptiles.” (One could just as easily call them “reptilian mammals”.)
Now clearly Carson doesn’t believe this, because in an earlier speech he said evolution producing adapted organisms made as much sense as a tornado blowing through a junkyard producing some useful object. But if you admit the possibility of microevolution, you admit of a gentle wind that, over time, has the same effects as that hurricane!
Carson further admitted in that talk that God produced organisms in one bout of creation, though he was unclear whether it took six literal days or six metaphorical days. In either case he’s backtracking on what he said before. Now it’s up to reporters to ask Carson what he sees as the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, and why the former is possible but the latter is not.
And as for God being “very smart,” well, if he was really smart he wouldn’t use the tortuous process of evolution, which involves the suffering of millions of animals and the extinction of millions of species that die without leaving descendants. He’d just give organisms the ability to instantly change their morphology and physiology in response to environmental change, or make that change by waving his hand. After all, God can do anything, and it takes Him no effort.
Carson continues:
So I say people who want to believe other than that they are welcome to do that. I known there are some people who say “you know it all just happened.” Well where did it all come from in the first place? “I don’t know but it’s there somewhere.” So I give them that it’s there. They say there was a big explosion and it all became perfectly organized to the point where we can predict seventy years hence when a comet is coming. Um, that requires more faith than I have. You know, that’s a complex set of things. Just the way the earth rotates on its axis, how far away it is from the sun. These are all very complex things. Uh, gravity. Where did it come from? I mean, there are so many things. So I don’t denigrate the people who say “Eh, eh, whatever, somehow it happened.” I don’t denigrate them, I just don’t have that much faith. But they are welcome to believe whatever they want to believe. I’m welcome to believe what I want to believe. They say I can’t be a scientist and yet somehow I became a neurosurgeon and did pretty well.
Shades of Bill O’Reilly and the tides! The record of predicting the arrival of comets, and the occurrence of solar and lunar eclipses, is pretty close to perfect. And we have plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, including the expanding universe and the microwave radiation that is the persisting echo of that bang. These are not matters of faith, but of fact.
Carson continues to insist that both science and religion are based on “faith,” playing on the different meanings that word has when applied to science (where it means “confidence based on observation, experiments, and experience”) versus religion (where it means something like “firm belief in something without the need for evidence strong enough to convince most rational people”). I recommend he read my piece in Slate on this difference.
As for gravity, it comes from the distortion of space-time by objects with mass.
Carson’s last statement, “They say I can’t be a scientist and yet somehow I became a neurosurgeon and did pretty well,” is telling. It shows that one can indeed be a competent physician, applying principles of science to one’s work, as Carson surely did, without extending those same principles to one’s beliefs—or even to areas like cosmology and biology. Carson’s inability to distinguish faith from fact makes him completely unsuitable to be President of the United States. Finally, I think he’s beginning to recognize that his antiscientific stand on evolution makes him look pretty dumb, so he’s moving away from straight creationism to the intelligent-design variety (“microevolution but not macroevolution”).
“Because he’s very smart he didn’t want to start over every fifty years.”
Well, why not? He’s omnipotent, so starting over every 50 years should be like lifting his pinky.
Except he did muck it up the first time apparently, and he was unable to predict the result of giving people free will, then telling them not to eat the fruit without explaining the consequences. Then it all went downhill ’til it got to the stage he decided to drown everyone and everything.
Apparently that isn’t going too well either because he’s still having to send earthquakes and tsunamis to warn us about abortion, contraception and homosexuality. Oh, and not wearing a full burqa instead of a hijab and jeans.
…and da gays!
God needs a mulligan.
😀
Great write up and an excellent slate article. I remember reading it a while back. I don’t remember if you ever posted on Ben Carson being taught chemist in one night by a nebulous figure. It’s worth a watch if you haven’t seen it. https://youtu.be/oEiBidpOzbs
Of course, looking at the textbook didn’t help at all! SMH.
Blatant lying! The really sad thing is that the audience didn’t burst into derisive laughter.
Indeed! It’s a wonder none asked “why didn’t he teach you how to cure cancer?” The answer is obviously because he didn’t have an oncology test. Duh.
Hey, what do we need the NIH for when we can just test Carson?
There is a nebulous figure alright…the one standing at the podium…
It’s pretty clear that, like most Americans, he simply accepted God explanations early in life and hasn’t given it any serious thought since.
“It’s pretty clear that, like most Americans, he simply accepted God explanations early in life and hasn’t given it any serious thought since.”
And has made a conscious effort not to give it any serious thought. Which is why I give no quarter to people like Carson who are intelligent enough to grasp the reality of evolution, but don’t.
I think your giving him far too much credit. I doubt he ever made any deliberate effort regarding evolution, including disregard. I’m in Don’s camp. I doubt it he ever seriously considered it. To a dyed in the wool creationist, you might as well suggest people can breathe water.
Carson blathers on about things he admits he doesn’t understand. And, he thinks his ignorance qualifies him to speak at a podium and run for president?
It worked for Reagan & Dubya.
Am I just being suspicious, or is he setting up to outlaw the use of contraception?
On a daily basis, I put more intelligent rocks than the contents of this guy’s head into bags with biocide and a depth label. Clearly a potential president.
On the evolution front, I’ve just been passing my eyes over a nice, new, open access, report on a new genus of mammal from the first 10 million or so years after the Medium Bang that coincided (approximately) with the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. Within that short period, they’d undergone significant radiation in body form and size (going from the sub-kilogram range to possibly up to 100kg!), but they’re all gone now, replaced by the rodents (paraphyletic? I think so). Link on the “report” above. It looks vaguely like an overgrown Capybara, until you look at the teeth and see why it’s family (order?) are called the “multituberculates”.
I shall retire to Tw*tter to slap people who thing that belief without supporting evidence is a “reasonable” position. It beats putting rocks into bags.
It would be easier for you to point out the smart things that the Republicans say. It would not fill up a single paragraph.
As I think about Ben Carson, a physician turned politician, I question whether his position on (micro) evolution is benign and further argue that the failure to delineate a sharp distinction between religious thinking and science is an egregious error for any scientist in the public eye to make. I realize Carson is in good company; leading scientific organizations, such as the National Academies of Science, have issued statements framing science and religion as equal but different modalities. And they may do so to encourage the religious-minded towards careers in science. But doing so doesn’t help promote literacy and the critical thinking that are required to disentangle woolly notions of meaning from actions that cause real harm. In particular, I’m thinking about Planned Parenthood and the recent and misinformed campaign about fetal tissue, which distorted facts and threatens the lives of women, many already under serious financial and social stress. As such, scientists should disrupt metaphors, such as intelligent design and Francis Collins’ “Language of God,” because to do not so has the unintended consequence of perpetuating confusion and a misguided sense of moral duty that religious thinkers act on; metaphors that mix scientific and religious thinking cast a Cimmerian (dark-age) spell. What the world needs is clear thinking and rational leaders who can break this spell. Ben Carson, Francis Collins, and others have a responsibility to cultivate supernatural-free language that values the natural world, our bodies, and our relationships, but, sadly, they have fallen prey to their own religious metaphors. How I wish they understood the impact of their language choices!!
I question Ben Carson being labelled a “scientist”. He’s more of a technician, really. His education and experience consist mainly of following procedures, albeit complex ones. Even as a medical professional he is limited to how much trial and error experimentation he can do (thankfully!) He depends on the science of others who make and test hypotheses. Calling him a scientist is like calling a test pilot a scientist. But maybe I’m making too fina distinction….
Let’s face it, brain surgery ain’t rocket science.
There is certainly a political-correctness problem among some on the Left. But the Right imbibes its own decocted PC brew. None of the GOP candidates for president will dare openly acknowledge the validity of evolution or anthropogenic global warming, for fear of offending the Republican base. Nor do they dare touch the other third rails of Republican politics by ever offering a kind word on gun control, comprehensive immigration reform, or women’s reproductive rights.
I keep remembering Carson’s story about God giving him the answers on an organic chemistry test he wasn’t prepared for.
The Miracle of the Peek at the Paper of the Smart Girl in Front of Him, possibly?
Yes, the Lord must have poofed a blessed virgin, one more concerned with maintaining a chaste appearance than with keeping her organic chemistry answers concealed, into a seat within young Carson’s eyeshot.
The Immaculate Deception, perhaps?
*rim shot*
I just can’t think of anything positive to say about this guy on anything. I would’t go to him with a headache.
The three main front runners of the republican bunch are all non-politicians and they are the dumbest of the group. Didn’t think that would be possible but yes, they have separated themselves from the pack.
Whatever else she is, Carly Fiorina is not dumb. She has three degrees from reputable universities, 2 of which, the Un. of Chicago and Stanford are rated in the top 10 in the world. This is similar to the tendency to consider Ted Cruz dumb. To do so is to dangerously underestimate these two.
Other than Fiorina being a pathological liar and totally incompetent at her work, she is just peachy.
Yes, well rather than looking up all the schools and degrees a person running for such an office has, I tend to concentrate on what they say in public and on the record currently. Things like what they believe in on the policies we are concerned about. And as far as Ted Cruz goes, he may be a very smart lawyer but he acts like a crazy teapot republican so I care less what school he went to.
Here is astrophysicist Ethan Siegel’s response:
“[Quotes Carson from 2011, who sounds remarkably like Carson from 2015:]
“Now, if you’re a scientist reading this, you’ll notice a certain pattern of reasoning that’s very common among non-scientists. It looks something like this:
Here are some facts — and pieces of evidence — that we can all agree on.
Here is what my logic tells me about those facts and this evidence.
But here is a ridiculous conclusion that I reach if I follow this logic, those facts and that evidence.
Therefore, your conclusion (i.e., the standard scientific interpretation) must be wrong, and my conclusion must be the correct one.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/600/1*INqRmAI2EYYrhqyA0tpSPg.jpeg
”
“It’s the antithesis of science: twisting the evidence to support your preconceived conclusion, rather than arriving at whatever conclusion the evidence leads you to.
In the specific case of Ben Carson and the Big Bang, there wasn’t an explosion, there was an initial, high-entropy, high-energy and high-temperature state, where matter, antimatter and radiation all existed in great abundance. As time went on, the Universe expanded and cooled, the antimatter annihilated away, and the matter, under the influence of gravity, clumped together, creating stars, galaxies, planets, and eventually, us.
The organization didn’t come about because of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. The organization he refers to came about because of the laws of physics, and of gravitation, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces in particular. They cause the various components of the Universe to bind together, release energy, and become ordered.”
“The fact that we can predict when a comet is coming has nothing to do with order, and everything to do with the laws of nature themselves.”
[ https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/dear-ben-carson-an-open-letter-2b4963d3cc46 ]
Has cryonics progressed enough yet to keep someone frozen for about eight years or so?
On second thought, never mind. Things might get even worse.
No, wait… You are thinking along the correct line. Freeze all the Republican candidates and then if the power happens to go out well, you know, too bad.
Or just keep them frozen at the North Pole. I wonder if they’d still be willing to take that chance that global warming isn’t real.
“It shows that one can indeed be a competent physician, applying principles of science to one’s work, as Carson surely did, without extending those same principles to one’s beliefs—or even to areas like cosmology and biology.”
Not just one’s work, but one’s everyday life. People very rarely (never?) rely on the religious type of faith in their daily lives. As Paul Simon would say, “Faith is an island in the setting sun…proof, yeah, proof is the bottom line for everyone…”
I don’t think Carson’s acceptance of microevolution is noteworthy or a move away from straight creationism. Even Answers in Genesis accepts microevolution (Mutation-Selection in Biblical Perspective). It’s about the only way creationists who give any thought to Noah’s Ark can make the story work out – only each ‘kind’ were represented on the ark, and then ‘adapted’ into all the species around today.
This isn’t a particularly new position of Carson’s either. In a Faith and Liberty podcast (more info on my personal site), Carson stated, “And, you know, even if you look at something like natural selection, which I totally believe in, by the way,” just before going on to the standard creationist trope of how evolution couldn’t have produced an eye.
Carson may be toning down somewhat on his most explicit endorsements of creationism, but he’s not really changing his tune. He’s still a typical creationist.
I forgot to mention. That Faith and Liberty podcast was from a year ago. In fact, he said much the same thing in an interview with the Adventist Review from all the way back in 2004. Here’s an excerpt from that article, showing Carson’s stance on micro- vs. macro-evolution (bold in the original to indicate interviewers questions/commentary).
What he said in the clip in the OP is entirely consistent with his stance from 11 years ago.
Last Saturday’s Financial Times carried an article about Carson giving his Policy Preferences:
Abortion. Strong opponent.
Guns.’Ownership is fundamental to our liberties’
Fiscal. Advocates a balanced-budget approach to rein in the $18bn in national debt.
Healthcare. Repeal Obamacare.
Faith. Says a Muslim should not be allowed to become president.
In a word, a “Republican”.
When you hear someone make a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, you just know instantly you’re dealing with a creationist.
I think we should introduce their counterparts, micro-aging and macro-aging to public discourse. We all get a little bit older, that’s why we need Rogaine or hair dye, but no one gets a lot older, that’s why infants never become senior citizens.
Don’t be ridiculous. Kids are kids and pensioners are pensioners. Are you seriously trying to tell me that one “kind” of person becomes a fundamentally different demographic rather than just adjusts to what life throws at them? Now that takes a lot of faith to swallow!
Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me we were all promiscuous sperms once.
Promiscuous sperm? That’s silly. No single sperm I’ve ever known has been with more than one partner.
I like it! But then I’ve macro-aged gracefully.
I always find it disturbing when a person, whose professional training was all science based, completely misses the simplest rules of science. It is shocking.
There is a common misconception that medical doctors are scientists, although some MD’s engage in research, the vast majority are technicians who make use of scientific research in the real world, just as engineers do. Thus, for a surgeon, it is not necessary to know basic biological principles, just when, where and how to cut just as an engineer doesn’t need to know how particles interact on a sub atomic level to do a stress calculation
Agreed. See my comment at #7.
I’d like to know if Carson has held forth – on record – on the recurrent laryngeal nerve (re: “macroevolution”), something he surely is aware of from his medical training.
sub
Comments such as the ones Carson makes about climate change always bug me. The rhetoric for these arguments often involves the implication that the left changed the term from global warming to climate change one it was obvious it wasn’t just warming.
Yet, when I search the web, there is plenty of literature about AGW that is very recent. Not only do they refuse to look at the evidence, they manufacture a plot to insist that the other side is participating in a cover up. Kind of reminds me of many brands of religion!
Sub
Huh?
I thought it went the other way?
Clearly a glitch on my part. Thanks for pointing it out; I’ve fixed it.