Well, all the headlines from the past several days say “yes,” but every story online appears to be a reprint of a piece by Dave Boucher in The Tennessean, “Ben Carson touts creationism during Nashville speech.” (Don’t papers do their own reporting any more?). At any rate, the Tennessean doesn’t really show that Carson is still a creationist—at least not in the sense that he still avers that God created all animals and plants ex nihilo, and within about 10,000 years ago. Here’s the “damning” bit from the paper (my emphasis):
Carson delivered two speeches Sunday morning at Cornerstone Church in Madison. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who’s recently surged in GOP presidential polls, weaved between a litany of different themes during the speeches, including everything from economics to his background growing up in Detroit.
Although the address at times sounded like a stump speech, Carson repeatedly returned to religion. This included his retort to “progressives” who question why he doesn’t believe in evolution.
“They say, ‘Carson, ya know, how can you be a surgeon, a neurosurgeon, and believe that God created the Earth, and not believe in evolution, which is the basis of all knowledge and all science?’,” Carson said during his second speech.
“Well, you know, it’s kind of funny. But I do believe God created us, and I did just fine. So I don’t know where they get that stuff from, ya know? It’s not true. And in fact, the more you know about God, and the deeper your relationship with God, I think the more intricate becomes your knowledge of the way things work, including the human body.”
. . . This is not the first time Carson has spoken about his doubts on evolution. Several national publications, including the Washington Post, BuzzFeed and others, have noted a speech from 2012 and other comments where Carson likened the big bang theory to “fairy tales” and questioned the motivation behind Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Carson’s response, in bold, espouses not biblical creationism, but just the notion that “God created us,” and that could be interpreted many ways, including as a species of theistic evolution, or even Deism. His statement about the intricacy of the human body does imply a kind of intelligent design, but it’s not very clear. So I think the title of Boucher’s piece is misleading.
But of course Carson really is a creationist. He’s a Seventh-Day Adventist, a church whose official theology espouses the literalism of Genesis 1 and 2. And while there are non-literalist Adventists, Carson isn’t among them, at least judging from his previous statements about creationism and evolution (see here and here, for instance). It’s palpably obvious from his earlier remarks that Carson is truly a diehard Biblical creationist.
It’s a serious indictment of the U.S. that a man who is so oblivious to reality, and so soaked in faith (the latter produces the former), is now—according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll—the clear front-runner in the race to win the Republican Presidential nomination. Can it be possible that he’ll really be the candidate? I still don’t think so, but, after all, Sarah Palin was a candidate for Vice President.
I would love, in future Republican debates, to see the moderators ask every candidate a straight-out question: “Do you accept the theory of evolution as espoused by the vast majority of biologists, or do you adhere to a Biblical form of creationism?”
But lately Carson has been ducking questions about his creationism, which I think he knows will turn off a lot of the American public. Instead, he he tries to emphasize his religiosity rather than his delusions about biological diversity. Here, for example, he ducks the creationism question on a recent appearance on Bill O’Reilly (see the question at 3:34):
You can see a very short video of Richard Dawkins criticizing Carson’s creationism at this CNN site.
h/t: jsp
There isn’t much that Carson says that makes much sense. He rambles all over the place and can barely put a coherent thought together. He is wrong on education, balancing the budget, education, ACA (health care), abortion and has no clue on dealing with the tax code or foreign policy and does not understand the first amendment.
He claims he is not a homophobe but says marriage is only for one man, one woman.
Why anyone would think this glorified vascular plumber is qualified to be president is mind boggling.
Carson is truly astonishing. He really is Chauncey Gardiner um…..reincarnated, the GOP of the …..gaps, like a man with…narcolepsy who never quite…drops off. I am amazed that he could be a top neuro-surgeon: he’s the sort of bloke who would induce a polite rictus grin of fake concentration if you were introduced to him down the pub.
” . . . glorified vascular plumber . . . .”
Just congenially curious – suppose Carson were just about all politically and intellectually you might wish. Would you still frame him as a “glorified vascular plumber”?
Yes, I would. There are cardiac surgeons who do several bypasses per day. They are very good at what they do, and they are desirable for these operations because of their experience, but I don’t want to vote for them for president either. Many people have an expertise but they are rarely a polymath. When they branch out, they quickly hit their uneducated incompetence.
Would you say a (Romneyesque?) undergraduate English major MBA/JD demigod CEO businessman would be more qualified than an M.D., on the basis of formal education, to run for (high) public office? (Of course, as s/he is able to make the time, an M.D. can education her/himself on other subjects. There is the occasional undergraduate philosophy major M.D.)
How about an economist? (From what I’ve read, there seems to be little that an economist – apparenently by virtue of being an economist – is not qualified to hold forth on.)
A political science or “public policy” Ph.D.? (Re: self-described “policy” person Margaret Spellings, who’s recently hired on as the President of the U of NC system president at $775,000/yr)?
A Ph.D. in history? (Newt Gingrich 😉 )
A four-star general or admiral?
An actor? A major university football coach (making $1.2M or more/yr, as opposed to a POTUS making $400K/yr)?
An autodidact with formal education not beyond the fifth grade but who greatly craved learning, who apprenticed himself to another lawyer, and who could quote verbatim great swaths of Shakespeare (A. Lincoln)?
Some of these, yes; some of these, no. What point are you trying to make?
I watched the 5 minutes or so that Dawkins was given Sunday on that show. Very little time but he did get to the heart of what is so goofy about this doctor.
And not only does he not understand the fundamentals of his own trade, he understands even less about the book he claims to have written. A lesson on the constitution is the last thing we need from this fellow.
Like nearly all republican, conservative types, the first and biggest claim to their knowledge of our history is that the Declaration of Independence is our founding document. Please keep the lack of understanding to yourself Doc, and actually read of few books first. The document you are looking for is the Constitution and that was about 13 years after the Declaration. And by the way, the declaration is what it’s title says and was address to the King. It was a long way from any government.
I’m sure a majority of Americans get the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution confused. Carson knows this and, like a stealth parasite, uses it to squirm his into the hearts of his victims.
Yes, the only thing historical about the book he is pushing “A More Perfect Union” is that it’s probably the first time a brain surgeon attempted to write a book on the constitution. The only thing you get out of the title is that he maybe read the Preamble.
I suspect his running for president is simply a front to sell this book and make a ton of money. And from what I have been able to read about the book, without actually having to read it, it is simply a sad tail of misinterpretation. He claims in the book that the constitution has kept govt. out of the way. That the constitution forbids abortion. The second amendment protects people from govt.
In short, it is a load of crap.
We’ll need a 10 page, single side, double spaced, book report by Friday. And no Cliff Notes. (You can ignore the assignment if you promise to vote for Hillary in 2016)
In context, however, he is explicitly contrasting his belief in God with evolution, so it seems pretty clear he is not communicating that he believes in both.
Meh, for four reasons.
1. The candidates will duck straight-out questions just like they’ll duck vague questions, if they think ducking will net them more votes than an honest answer either way.
2. I’m really much more interested in their policy positions on creationism than their personal beliefs on it. I’d much rather hear about whether they want (for example) Edwards vs. Aguillard overturned or whether they support administration-led prayer being allowed in public schools, vice their personal belief in the age of the earth. If you don’t intend to mess with public education or SCOTUS precedents on the issue, I frankly don’t care whether you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old or not. And if you do intend to mess with the secular nature of education, I also don’t care whether you’re creationist at heart or just doing it to support those constituents, I’ll oppose you either way.
3. Now that the GOP candidates are making the debate rules, the chances of getting such a divisive question are between zero and nil.
4. If it doesn’t get asked in the primary, there’s still the general election debates.
Not sure if this debate has been posted here before, but Ben Carson was in full-on Answers for Genesis mode. It was like he was in a contest to demonstrate the worst understanding of evolution possible…just listen to his car analogy.
If we had only known, you can disprove evolution with a VW and a Merc. Now that is brain surgery.
Oh, but we just CAN’T be asking the candidates questions that concern their religious beliefs; that wouldn’t be “P.C.” It might make them nervous and make them feel like they’re being called upon to actually defend (or rationally explain) what they believe. We all know, of course, that none of the G(Tea)OP candidates would EVER allow their religious beliefs to influence the actions they might take as Chief Executive, right?… Right? Why, religion’s nothing to be concerned about; it’s kinda like what necktie you’ve chosen to wear that day…..right?
sub
He claims he doesn’t know how old the Earth is. How is this even remotely acceptable, especially in a Presidential candidate?
Does he profess similar ignorance about the size and shape of the Earth? If so, how can he respond to diplomatic and military situations across the globe?
Is he similarly ignorant of the sizes of and distances to the Moon, Sun, and Mars? How, then, is he to intelligently contribute to any discussions about NASA’s plans for exploring those bodies?
The biggest problem facing our generation is the double whammy of global warming and the looming energy crisis. Both are a direct result of our historical use of fossil fuels. If he doesn’t know how old the Earth is, how is he supposed to make knowledgeable policy decisions about the stuff at the heart of the problem that’s nearly as old as the Earth?
I’d be okay if his response was that he wasn’t a geologist and so didn’t feel qualified to lecture on the subject, but that he’s consulted with geologists and that they’ve told him the Earth is a few billion years old so that’s his working assumption. You’d hope a President would be more broadly curious than that and have learned as much about the world as possible on his own, but we all have limits to what we can devote our attention to.
But for him to not even have consulted with actual experts on the subject, at this late stage in his campaign?
Such gross incompetence is simply inexcusable.
b&
“He claims he doesn’t know how old the Earth is.”
If pressed, he would say that nobody knows.
If pressed even more, he would say that he has an “open mind”, and that since nobody really knows the Earth’s age, we should not rule out those who say that it is only 10,000 years old. For bonus points, he would turn it around and say that those who insist that the Earth is very old are being quite close-minded and dogmatic, and demonstrating just as much faith as the religious.
That’s probably how he’ll roll on this question from now on.
Carson apparently believes and lives creationist nonsense. Tom Cruise apparently believes and lives Scientology nonsense. Each is rather prominent and competent in a profession, one which seems to be mentally demanding, and is in the public eye. So there is some analogy there.
But I don’t think either fact about the man himself is particularly surprising, given our knowledge of how easy it seems for people to create contradictory compartmentalizations in their brains. To belabour the obvious, the surprising and depressing thing is the existence of many people who are influenced in those utterly anti-intellectual, even anti-human-progress, directions by such people.
But is a neurosurgeon’s need for a decent understanding of basic biology much greater than a Hollywood actor’s need to understand the basic physics behind the electronics in a movie camera? I don’t think medical doctor/researchers are particularly impressed with the intellectual depths of surgeons in general, but rather think of them as athletes of a kind, with excellent eyes and hand/eye coordination, and very good memories and abilities to perform 100% under pressure.
I have made no effort to learn just what is so singular about the performance of Carson as a surgeon, so may be missing something. Did he invent some new technique, for example? Of course the facts of his childhood do make his later accomplishments impressive. And some voters can have some pretty dumb reasons for their choices, given that he’s not running to be figurehead of an organization for increasing the prospects of underprivileged children.
I’m curious what SDA church members have to say about him. He certainly waffles on the creation thing, but the church is not at all ambiguous on this. He is blowing an opportunity to provide a clear witness to the truth of…(insert blah blah blah here).
He’s either lying six days a week or one day a week. His apparent density when the subject drifts away from surgery leads me to conclude “six”.
I’m sure he is a bit of a celebrity within the church. My mother-in-law has mentioned him before going way back and she is a full blown member. SDA has tons of Hospitals, medical schools all over the place. It’s like doctors and medicine is their thing. From Loma Linda on to a hospital in Okinawa I have gone to while over there, they seem to be everywhere.
Very interesting! And helpful, for those of us who tend to confuse SDA’s with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Considering the latter won’t even allow blood transfusions, this is quite the distinction!
The medical arm of the sda church is the best thing about it. While not necessarily the best system out there, it’s good, with fairly wide adoption of new technology and techniques.
I’m somewhat amused by comments here suggesting that understanding of evolution (and so on) is necessary for one to be good at executing medical procedures. It shows a lack of philosophical understanding of the difference between applied science as practiced by technologists and research science.
Agreed. One could become an expert in the form and functioning of any organ, or at least know enough to repair it, without having any real understanding of its evolutionary history.
That may seem very odd. But a trained creationist doctor, who thinks your appendix was created ex nihilo, will be in a much better position to help you when it becomes infected than someone like me, a non-doctor who has some understanding of evolution.
But as Dawkins said – Biology is the foundation of all medicine. So to discount evolution or just not understand it, for a doctor?
Physics may be foundational to the automotive industry, but a master mechanic doesn’t need to know much about formal physics.
Medicine has different specialties. It’s not humanly possible to have an understanding of all of it. Biology may be the foundation, but to make an apt analogy, one doesn’t have to know anything about the foundation a house sits upon to repair the roof.
What your saying is akin to saying one has to understand theoretical physics to do any work on a house.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
The church, as I remember it, wasn’t all that keen on compromising certain principles. I was raised with the clear understanding that there were, for example, certain jobs an Adventist simply couldn’t take because of the Sabbath. Dodging clear answers to creation questions would be viewed as akin to Peter’s denials of Christ. I can see that pissing off a lot of Adventists.
I suspect he is what we used to refer to as a “California Adventist”, a bit too ecumenical and liberal for tastes in the hinterland, and in the conservative church hierarchy. Although I had shed the religion by the time I got to Loma Linda U, I think I recognize the rhetorical 2 step (not to be confused with the vegetarian hop) that many of my colleagues went through trying to avoid stepping in the leakage between their mental compartments.
I don’t doubt that Carson himself believes that he has an internally consistent set of views, but I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of Adventists out there who see him as an apostate and are busy laying on the cock-crowing metaphors.
I would like to ask each candidate: “If you were President and you received a message from God telling you to launch an immediate nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, would you do so even if you personally felt that it was a mistake and your advisers warned you that it was a mistake?”
If any candidate gets that message, God must not be keeping up with events in this neck of the woods. The Soviet Union no longer exists.
Wikipedia lore states that the very first Wikipedia article ever to get deleted (due to failure to comply with notability guidelines) was “List of things that Bill O’Reilly has called Far Left”. Unfortunately, articles deleted altogether can’t be recovered on the Wikipedia website. (Perhaps on the Wayback machine though.)
O’Reilly is also confused about the standard usage of the term “intelligent design” here. No one really uses this term to designate theistic evolution.
I’ve heard nothing to convince me that Carson is oblivious to reality. Indifferent to the truth? You bet. But I’m sure he knows that much of what he says is nonsense. At some point, most believers have to decide whether to lie for what they are convinced is a greater good. Carson’s just being led to do this more out in public.
I don’t think so. He’s been saying these types of creationist things for years, well before he had any political aspirations and had to pander to the base of the Republican party. I think he really does believe most of this stuff.
Yes, he really does believe it, and that’s the scary part
No, I don’t think he’s pandering, and I’m sure that his decision to say what he says is longstanding. It’s just that I remember reading the transcript of an Albert Mohler lecture, the focus of which was that, even though all of the evidence supports the evolutionary process as scientists understand it, the audience must promote young earth creationism because it is so important that scripture be inerrant. In other words, we know better, but it’s important that we don’t say so. Buttressing theism is more important than the truth. And I think that’s where Carson is coming from, too.
(not sure if my previous comment got held up in moderation or lost to the ether)
I don’t think so. He’s been saying these types of creationist things for years, well before he had any political aspirations and had to pander to the base of the Republican party. I think he really does believe most of this stuff.
I had dinner with my mom a couple weeks ago when she came out to visit. Both my folks are born again Christians, so you can guess their political party. I asked who she liked as GOP candidate. She said Ben Carson. I asked why him? She said he seemed nice. I told her that was a strange reason to vote for a President and if that is the reason, you should have voted for Obama. Then she said lets stop talking about politics.
Republicans = face palm.
Yeah, good thing every Democratic voter is a policy expert. 😉
So Bill says that the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were able to hold off the Nazis because they had guns. Sorry Bill, you ignorant fool, the Nazis killed them all.
I don’t understand this argument that we, as citizens, need guns to protect us from the government and its 21st century military. Many of the people who claim this are probably also supporters of our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they expect our warriors to go overseas and comfortably defeat modern professional armies and mercenaries.
But when faced with a largely obese citizenry armed with some hand-held weapons, apparently the greatest military power ever known will be completely ineffectual. I’m not sure how people reconcile these two things.
Despite much touted divine guidance, Carson’s Seventh Day Adventist Church is not immune to horrific moral blunders or shameful procrastination before admitting them. German Adventists apparently backed Hitler.
See pdf file: http://www.adventisten.de/fileadmin/…/8may1945.pdf
IIRC the whiff of news I heard, Carson, et al have imposed on debate moderators the requirement not to ask any “got’cha” questions, or questions regarding anything the candidate has said in the past. I assume that any question about evolution or the Earth’s age qualifies insofar as Carson is concerned.
Carson has a gift for using words to say absolutely nothing.
Memo to self :
If I go under the knife again, while conscious, remember to ask the surgeon “Are you now or have you ever been a creationist idiot?” And if answered in the affirmative, to leave the table, fighting.
Carson is so good for my faith in his profession.
Would comments like this be grounds for getting him disbarred for bringing the profession into disrepute?