#rsrh The inevitable Rick Perry/MSNBC creationism post.

You know, I didn’t actually wake up this morning and decide Hey, let’s talk about Governor Rick Perry all the time today! I mean, I still have two RS Gathering mini-interviews to process, new interviews to set up, trying to figure out how to get to NJ this weekend when the 9/11 motorcycle riders are taking the same route at the same time, that sort of thing.  Seriously, I would like to dwell on other things.

But apparently the media is refusing to play ball. Which means that, as a media parasite and all that, I apparently have to follow suit.

Some takeaways from this little bit from MSNBC on Perry dealing with an attack-by-proxy on creationism:

“Evolution is a theory that’s out there,” Perry says crouching down and staring into the eyes of an elementary-school-age child, who stands with his mother’s hands on his shoulders.

“It’s got some gaps in it,” Perry continues, “but in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution…”

“Ask him why he doesn’t believe in science,” the mother interjects off camera.

Putting both hands on the outside of the boy’s shoulders, Perry, non-plussed and not acknowledging the mother says, “…because I figured you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.

In no particular order:

  1. I’m an evolutionist myself (theistic variety), but I’m extremely less concerned that Rick Perry might be a creationist than I am in the fact that MSNBC apparently can’t find writers who can write.  To give just one example: the rest of the article in question was in the past tense.  Either tense is more or less fine, folks – but pick one and stick to it.
  2. When MSNBC feels obligated to point out that a mother is acting like a [redacted] by using her kid as a mobile prop, then you have failed in your mission.  Seriously, ma’am, the guy was right there.
  3. Perry’s answer fit the situation: which is to say, it did not actually answer the question, avoided saying anything actually damaging to the candidate, and pandered like hell.  All of that is meant as a compliment, by the way.
  4. Damn, but the Left’s cranky these days.

That’s it.  But, seriously, MSNBC: think about remedial compositional writing classes for your staff, OK?  You’re trying to make yourselves look like the smart news network, after all.

Moe Lane


  • Steve Maley (@VladimirRS) says:

    “Theistic evolutionist” probably fits me too. The teaching of Creationism as a fact is not a wise approach, but I’d say the same about evolution. The important takeaway is an important scientific and philosophical one, and that is that there are few beliefs you can hold which are beyond being challenged.

    Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics are about as “fact-based” as you can get (in terms of human experience), but they both have limitations to their usefulness.

    Kids need to be taught how to think, not what to believe. But of course if you do that, then there goes Global Warming.

  • Rob Crawford says:

    I’d rather a president believe in Young Earth Creationism than Socialism and Anthropogenic Global Warming. The YEC believer doesn’t see it as reason to clap me in chains, but the Socialist AGW believer DOES.

  • Jbird says:

    I’m a creationist who sees enough holes in evolutionary theory to not be swayed, but if theistic evolution turns out to be right it wouldn’t blow my mind. Frankly it doesn’t really impact my day to day life or decision making process.

  • Metzger says:

    “Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics are about as “fact-based” as you can get (in terms of human experience)…”

    But you have to admit, to the average schmoe out there (including me), that accepting those as fact is actually an article of faith. I have to trust that people waaaaaay smarter than me can prove it. That’s why all the jiggery-pokery involved in junk and pop science these days is so damaging.

  • jetty says:

    @Steve Maley – great post.

    I have a MS degree, and have looked into the evolution/creation debate (and consider myself a creationist with @Jbird’s attitude). One aspect of this debate that was interesting is how it paralleled the whole AGW debate. There came a time when the evolutionists would no longer publicly debate the creationists, and then began to say how the science was settled, and if you didn’t believe it, you were a total crank. Sound familiar?

    Even today, conservatives who are anti-AGW will parrot Al Gore in shouting down creationists. Although it’s a sensitive subject, I appreciate how Moe, Steve Maley, Rob, Jbird and Metzger responded without being crass or divisive.

  • TW says:

    “4.Damn, but the Left’s cranky these days.”

    Those days must be longer than 24 hour days.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by