Posted on 10/28/2015 2:09:11 PM PDT by Kaslin
THE TV NEWS was on, and there was a story about the leading candidates in the Republican presidential field.
"So if Donald Trump gets the nomination," my liberal friend needled me, "are you going to vote for him?"
"He's not going to be the nominee," I said, "but I wouldn't vote for him in any case."
"What about Ben Carson?" he wanted to know.
I like what I've seen of Carson's personality and character, I replied, but I couldn't imagine backing someone so inexperienced for president. Then I added: "He'd make a great surgeon general, though!"
I meant it lightheartedly, but my companion was appalled. A surgeon general who doesn't accept Darwinian evolution? I couldn't really imagine Carson in that post, could I?
Now it was my turn to be amazed. Carson is an eminent physician and surgeon. He was a professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins, and spent 29 years as the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. In a 2001 celebration of "researchers and doctors who are changing our world," Time magazine hailed Carson as one of America's best scientists and physicians. The Library of Congress, no less, declared him a "living legend." Surely even the most impassioned liberal couldn't argue that Carson, whatever his political or religious beliefs, would lack the scientific and medical chops to make a fine surgeon general, the nation's leading spokesman on matters of public health.
Nonsense, said my liberal friend. Someone who questions the fundamental scientific understanding of the development of life on earth would have little credibility on any scientific topic, including public health. Carson may be a great surgeon, but if he rejects such bedrock scientific findings, who knows what other well-founded data he would refuse to acknowledge?
It is certainly true that Carson denies that life developed through random, unguided genetic mutations over millions of centuries. It is also true that he believes in literal six-day creationism (though he's agnostic on the question of the planet's age) and that he attributes the rise of Darwinian thinking to the influence of "the Adversary," — i.e., Satan. Those are not mainstream views, but Carson has plainly thought about the subject and hasn't been shy about explaining his conclusions, in both religious and scientific terms.
To be sure, he is seeking the presidency, not the office of surgeon general or any other science-related position. But would Carson's views on evolution and Creation be such a red flag to Democrats if his views generally were more in line with left-wing priorities?
The best-known and most beloved surgeon general of all — C. Everett Koop — is remembered for his early leadership in fighting AIDS and for warning bluntly that smoking was harmful. Liberals admired him for putting public health before politics or ideology. Yet Koop, too, was skeptical of Darwinism. "It has been my conviction for many years that evolution is impossible," he wrote in a 1986 letter. Like Carson, Koop also believed that Genesis should be taken at face value, not as "something like parables." Yet those views clearly were no barrier to Koop's nonpareil service as surgeon general.
Similarly, Carson's decades of remarkable medical achievement should quell any suggestion that his biblical views about the development of life "in the beginning" have impeded his scholarship and skill at saving and improving lives in the present. All faiths (including dogmatic atheism) incorporate teachings that cannot be supported by mainstream science. Water into wine? Manna from heaven? Golden plates from an angel in New York? A universe that spontaneously created itself?
Can you regard someone's religious creed as preposterous, yet entrust the person who is faithful to that creed with public office? Of course; Americans do it all the time. I can't see Carson as president, but what I really can't see is why his religion or his doubts about evolution (neither of which I share) should even enter the conversation.
Well, I have no intention to vote for Trump or Dr Ben Carson, but instead of Surgeon General I think Dr Ben Carson would be
perfect as Secretary off Health and Human Services. Besides he would be over the Surgeon General. Check it out
“There are two kinds of people in this world. There are creationists. And there are those who ignore creation.”
I think you’re right, but I do occasionally think of another possibility that could help to explain the lunacy of todays politics and failing state of our country. There are creationists. And there are those who descended from monkeys and we call them libs. ;>)
As for Carson....I don’t give one whit about his choice of religion, but I will NOT vote for him under any circumstances.
You are a (starts with M and ends with n and has 3 letters in between)
Not knowing is great, because it represents an opportunity for research, in which ignorance IS bliss, the precursor to discovery.
Or believe they are. Who am I to judge them if they think their ancestors were apes?
Meanwhile, maybe someone will explain that belief in virgin births and real presences and resurrections from the dead are never held against a politician, but rather only the Six Days of Creation. Apparently atheists have no problems with a magical universe in which miracles constantly happen so long as that universe formed purely "naturally."
Exactly. LOL
M-O-O-O-N that spells moon, laws yes...
Yep. Exactly.
He does not follow young earth 6k years old. He doesn’t subscribe to evolution or theistic evolution.
Yep. Exactly.
‘Cuz the MSM will really start hammering him. And he can’t claim racism because he’s a Republican.
Actually, it would make more sense to ask leftist candidates whether they believe in evolution. Despite all purporting to do so, essentially “because science”, the left really doesn’t actually believe in the account of human origins provided by the neo-Darwinian synthesis: they are all Rousseauians, rather than Darwinians. To the left, Man is neither the pinnacle of creation who joins the material and the spiritual, nor a great ape who speaks, but a blank slate on which is written whatever society writes, and who thus can be remade and perfected by remaking and perfecting society. Leftist all fancy that their program will produce the “New Soviet Man” (even if they don’t call their hypothetical goal that anymore).
If the left really believed in the Darwinian account of human origins, they would not insist that differences in social outcomes between human populations whose ancestors faced radically different selection pressures for perhaps 99,700 out of the last 100,000 years are all the result of racism. If left really believed in Darwinism, they would not spend so much effort promoting the Darwinian dead ends of homosexuality and transgenderism. The notion of a fixed human nature, whether arrived at by direct Divine Creation and the Fall, or by biological evolution, is anathema to the left because they want to remake Man in the image of their fantasies, and a fixed human nature does not allow them to do that.
Creationism is wedge issue, a major turnoff for most voters. He definitely should back off that position if indeed he holds it.
Well we are electing a Commander in Chief and not a Scientist in Chief. My reasons for believing Carson is not suited for the presidency has nothing to do with his religious beliefs and everything to do with his policies. Or lack thereof.
Matin?
Mason?
Maven?
Melon?
Meson?
Mixen?
Moten?
Mourn?
Mucin?
Muton?
Irn Maden.
Stirred, not shaken.
He’d make a great surgeon general, though!”
**************************************************************************
An office that should be eliminated, among many others.
If you have something to say, there’s plenty of room right here on this thread.
I use FR Mail for constructive personal communication.
I do not use it to trade insults.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.