Perry Wrinkle

In my American News essay today I argued that Governor Rick Perry's statements on evolution and global warming were unforced errors. They will be used to show that he is an extremist and they distract attention from the issue on which he can win the White House. It's the economy, stupid.

I am not entirely certain that what I wrote is correct. Perry's statements made him the center of attention at a key moment. He has seized the lead for the Republican nomination in the recent Gallup poll. They show him as a man whose mind has content and who is not afraid to express his opinions. This may look good to a lot of voters when they compare him to the current occupant of the White House.

There is also the possibility that Perry is playing Reagan style rope-a-dope. The Democrats and the press waged an all out war against Ronald Reagan from the moment he secured the 1980 nomination. They painted him as mean and crazy. The trouble was, after four years of cartoons showing Jimmy Carter as a clueless bumpkin, mean looked pretty good. And after all the crazy cowboy hype, all Reagan had to do was walk onto the debate stage in a suit and talk English. His enemies made it very easy for him to look reasonable by comparison to their caricatures.

It is altogether possible that Perry is playing the same game. The Obama team is already rousing the troops against Perry. They may well waste most or all of their ammunition before the real campaign begins.

The other question is whether enough Americans and especially enough independents will regard Perry's views as extremist or care much about them. Perry thinks that evolution is a theory with gaps. He is right of course, but the same is true of most important scientific theories. He thinks that evolution and creationism ought to be taught together. Kids are smart enough to make up their minds.

Creationism ought not to be taught in schools, even side by side with evolution. The doctrine that scientific evidence supports a literal reading of Genesis has no scientific value. However, Perry acknowledges that evolution ought to be taught in schools. I doubt that a majority of voters will consider his view extremist or alarming.

Governor Perry said this about the climate change issue:

I do not buy into a group of scientists, who have been, in some cases, found to be manipulating this information. And the cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions if not trillions of dollars at the end of the day. And I don't think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is more and more being put into question."

Governor Perry thinks that a lot of scientists have manipulated the data on climate change and seems to think that the consensus on Anthropological Global Warming is beginning to crumble. He is right about the first point, though it isn't clear how significant the examples are. He is probably wrong about the second point, at least just yet.

He also believes that the anti-carbon programs would be ruinously expensive and he opposes spending that money. Here he is on very solid ground, if only because we very certainly are not going to spend that money. Cap and Trade came a cropper here and climate change agreements have gone nowhere globally.

A reasonable person may certainly disagree with Governor Perry here, but disagreement is what often happens between reasonable persons. Perry's view on global warming represents a consensus among conservatives and is in accord with political reality. They are well supported, for example, in the British Telegraph.

I still think that these are distractions. If Governor Perry wins next year's Presidential election, it will be on the economy and the national debt. He might yet benefit from the distractions. The left will argue that his opinions are loony tunes, but they are the opinions of an awful lot of Americans and they aren't stupid. Perry may play rope-a-dope all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Comments

[cheap Ed Hardy]

I really relate to that post. Thanks for the info.

[Bill Fleming]

Interesting construct, Ken. What would it look like to have two boxers in the ring, each trying to out rope-a-dope the other? It's true that both Obama and Perry know how to dance. It could come down to which style the audience prefers. Moonwalkin' or line dancin'. LOL.

[duggersd]

Actually, I thought his answers about creationism were very reasonable. Those evolutionists out there really break down when they have to answer the question as to where the first form of life came from. Interestingly, Ann Coulter has an article about this topic. She points out for what evolutionists suggest happened the mathematical odds are extraordinary, in fact, mathematically improbable to impossible. Creationists believe there is an intelligence in the design. Evolutionists believe in well, it just happened.
Bottom line though, who cares? What does this have to do with jobs?

[Bill Fleming]

Bwaa-hahahah.

"Those evolutionists out there really break down
when they have to answer the question as to
where the first form of life came from."

So what's the answer, duggerSD?

To you know?

Does Ann Coulter?

Bwaa-hahahah

[duggersd]

It does not matter what my answer is. I happen to believe God was behind it all. What is more important is what do you believe?

[Bill Fleming]

Of course it matters. It's your criticism.

And yet your argument is even more lacking in evidence that the one you critique.

Here it is in a nutshell. "You can't prove where the first life form came from, so it must have come from God."

[Bill Fleming]

By the way, I could just as easily agree with you, duggerSD, as long as we put the word [God] in brackets.

But in so doing I suspect that we really haven't advanced our mutual understanding one iota.

I suspect that you and I mean completely different things when we use the word [God].

[duggersd]

No, Bill. Evolutionists have no answer for where the first life came from. Those who believe in a god in one way or the other have a belief. And after all, that is what evolution is, a belief. Evolutionists tell us over billions of years an organism had something evolve into an eyeball that required billions of possible wrong combinations to get it right. People who believe in a creation, believe there is something more to it than chance. So, what is really important to you is do you believe God created life or do you believe it just happened? And again, this has nothing to do with jobs. BTW, did you see that video where some lady got her kid to ask the question because she was afraid to? He nailed it.

[Bill Fleming]

Okay, if you believe in that, DuggerSD, tell us why God hasn't created any jobs?

Is he waiting for Rick Perry to become president first? LOL.

By the way, your understanding of evolution and science in general is sorely lacking, my friend.

People who understand evolution theory say there is something more to it than chance as well.

Exactly what subject is it that you teach anyway?

[Bill Fleming]

"...do you believe God created life or do you believe it just happened?"... What's the difference?

[Donald Pay]

Perry can't win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Ohio. He's a guaranteed loser in the general election. That Texan swagger doesn't cut it in the Mideast or Midwest anymore. Bush sort of ruined it for Texans (or southerners) for awhile. Nobody up here buys that act.

[Mike Cooper]

the election won't be about Perry, romney or whomever. It will be about Obama. He will lose.

[Bill Fleming]

Don't bet the farm on it, Mike.

[duggersd]

"People who understand evolution theory say there is something more to it than chance as well." Something more than chance???? Um what/who?
"tell us why God hasn't created any jobs" Uh, maybe God has different priorities. Maybe He is waiting for President Obama to see the light. I guess I do not spend a lot of time questioning God, but I do have to admit I am curious about His reasoning for mosquitoes.
Again, this argument has nothing to do with jobs. That is why it is bogus anyway. I am not going to vote based upon whether someone believes in evolution or creationism. It is typical of liberals to laugh at people who do not believe as they do. They have the arrogance to believe they have the answers and anybody who disagrees is an idiot. You can believe as you want as far as I am concerned. I really do not care much. I just look at the laws of probability and believe that the random selection required for natural selection is too unlikely and put my faith in that Someone created it. I have yet to read what/who/how life was first formed from you, which is typical. As for why it matters, it matters to you.

Spanish

Donald, thanks for your prognosticating. I am glad to know Perry should not even bother to run in the land of Senator Feingold and Supreme Court Judge Kloppenburg and the new Democrat majority in the Wisconsin senate. Wishful thinking does not win elections.

[duggersd]

BTW, here is an interesting endorsement of Rick Perry from one of his former rivals. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/24/kinky-friedman-rick-perry-s-got-my-vote.html

[Anthony Renli]

DruggerSD - Evolution is not the study of where life came from...it's the study of how life has changed since it started. They are not looking into the origin of life, they are looking at why rabbits have to eat their poop to extract nutrients. You are looking for them to have answers to questions that they are not looking for...and then deny the answers that they have found.

Saying that Evolution is wrong because they can't say where life comes from is like saying that bio-chemistry is wrong because it can't explain how gravity works...

If you ask any scientist if evolution COULD be the result of an omnipotent/omniscient God (or even some being so much more advanced than we are that to our prospective they are close to this) they will say yes. They might qualify it that there is no objective evidence that it is the case...but that doesn't make it impossible.

Science is the "How Stuff Works as Best We Understand It," NOT "Why It Is That Way." We don't question the why of electricity. We don't question the why of chemical reactions. Evolution (as scientists view it) is the same. It is our best understanding of the mechanism of how life has changed and developed on the planet based off of the data we have at this time. The philosophical baggage we have heaped onto it doesn't have anything to do with the science involved.

Should it be taught in school...Like Newt Gingrich (a voice of reason in this case): Teach Evolution in Science class and Intelligent Design and/or creationism in a Philosophy class.

[Bill Fleming]

DuggerSD, to understand the theory better, think of a chaotic system like the weather. When conditions are right, out in the Atlantic a tropical storm begins to form. Eventually (a few weeks in the future) there will be an outcome, the path will be known and the results of that beginning recorded in terms of hurricane strength, property damage, etc, etc.

Perhaps the very first stirrings of the storm are random, but as the system gets going it gets more and more predictable. There is nothing "random" or "chance" about it. It's not going to stop until it plays itself all the way out. And even then the system will go back into the far more subtle ebb and flow of the atmosphere.

The storm "evolves" just as life does. It is a dynamic system. Once it gets going, the subsequent phases of development are anything but "chance." One thing leads to the next in a perfectly logical manner, provided you were capable of capturing all the data. The fossil record is an imperfect record of that dynamic history. But there is enough of a pattern there to be able to say with confidence that this, and this, and that must have happened between this point in time and that one, much as you would be able forensically to deduce the path of a hurricane, or a tornado, or even a car accident for that matter.

[duggersd]

Renli, evolutionists do not want to answer that question because they are stuck. Bill, believe what you want to believe. You both are missing the point. Governor Perry gave a perfectly good answer when some lady brought her kid up and tried to trap him on evolution. http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/08/good-grief-pushy-mother-has-kid-ambush.html This whole discussion has nothing to do with what is going to elect the next president. President Obama has a good chance of losing. He is showing himself to be slightly less competent than Jimmy Carter. In January of 2013, he will probably have that stupid smile of his saying he can hardly wait to get the hell out of there. The reason so many Republicans are trying to jump in is because they believe whichever Republican gets in stands a good chance of winning. Governor Perry, Governor Romney, Rep. Bachmann, and Rep. Paul are ALL polling well against President Obama. Hell, I would probably poll well against him. Things can always change, after all a month is a lifetime in politics. I am sure if President Obama turns things around and we have 8% unemployment one year from November or are going towards that, he will win re-election. But on the other hand, President Obama has said himself that if he does not get unemployment to go down, he will be a one term President. Hopefully, he is right.

[Bill Fleming]

This from DuggerSD who is so demanding of proof. Sigh.

[Anthony Renli]

DruggerSD - It has nothing to do with being stuck - again, you are showing that you do not understand either the Science of Evolution or Science in general.
The origin of Life on Earth and Evolution are two completely different topics. You are again complaining stating that Bio-Chemistry is not valid because it doesn't explain Gravity. Or Nuclear Physics isn't valid because it can't explain how chemical imbalances in the brain can cause schizophrenia. If you are looking for the Science of the Origin of Life, you are looking for Abiogenesis, which does NOT have a standard model that has wide acceptance.

The issue is that Governor Perry also does not seem to understand this difference, and because of that it does cause questions as to whether or not he is fit to set policy with regards to science. Now, should this particular issue overwhelm the Economy, or National Defense, or [insert your personal hot button issue here]? That is up to each individual voter. If the election were to be between him and Obama, I don't think I could vote for him, in large part because of his lack of understanding of science. (If it was between say Obama and Huntsman...or Obama and Romney...or Obama and Newt...well, that changes things)

[Mike Cooper]

Hi Bill, I won't bet the farm on Obama losing, particularly since I don't even own a farm. However, I will be entitled to bragging rights. The point of my post was that voters will vote for or against Obama, not for or agains the Republican nominee. If Perry is nominated, Obama will lose.

[Ken Blanchard]

Good thread. I side largely with Mr. Renli on this one and Mr. Flemming on the evolution question. Since evolution is, by definition, something that happens to species of organisms, it presupposes the existence of living organisms. It is true that there is no good theory of abiogenesis, or the emergence of living organisms from inorganic matter. There are lots of questions that various sciences cannot answer. That is no great embarrassment to the sciences; it is inf fact the reason we continue to do science.

I have no trouble believing that abiogenesis occurred. There are a number of non-living things that behave an awfully lot like organisms. Viruses and prions come to mind.

On the actual point, as I indicated, I think Governor Perry is wrong to advocate the teaching of creationism along with evolution. Creationism is a pseudo-science that has no scientific utility whatsoever and in my opinion it is rather stupid. Intelligent design theory, by contrast, is quite intelligent. I think it fails, but it fails in an interesting and informative way. Still, I do not think it should be taught in schools. It has yet to spawn anything like a real research program.

I side with Dugger on another point, that Perry's comments were perfectly reasonable. Just because I disagree with Perry's view doesn't mean that the view is extremist or irrational. I also think that there are ways in which Perry's view could be accommodated. Darwin himself frequently addressed questions of creation. The controversy could be highlighted in the teaching of evolution in a way that is respectful both to science and to religion. Obviously this controversy stirs the blood. Don't we want students to be interested in scientific questions? This is a way to keep them interested.

[Bill Fleming]

Good points, KB. In fact, what makes arguments about this so difficult sometimes is that the anti-evolution debater is presuming his opponent holds a position opposite his own, which in fact s/he often tomes does not, at least in terms of process.

A good scientist will be as eager to prove his/her own theory wrong as anyone else will. That's how theories are tested.

So in a way, the scientist and his critic are actually on the same side.

It is the mumbo-jumbo men who cast about looking for plausible evidence to prove dubious theories.
A creationist will typically grasp at anything they can get their hands on to prove the "history" in the bible, even as they preach it is all really to be taken on faith.

When a scientist takes an ID theory apart, s/he's not being mean or sacrilegious.

S/he's just doing science.

[Bill Fleming]

Finally, the reason I take issue with Perry's answer is the dogwhistle nature of it. Half the time, evangelicals are speaking in code, because they get taken to the woodshed if they come right out and say what they are really thinking. For example, when he's asked,— after giving a speech where he says we need leaders who are in love with America — if he thinks Obama doesn't love America, Perry says, "You'll have to ask him." I think those kind of answers are cowardly and deceitful. But maybe that's just me.

[duggersd]

Bill, it really does not matter whether Rick Perry thinks Obama loves America or not. The only person that knows is Obama. So go ask him. BTW, according to President Obama, HE says he is unpatriotic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJDBJI84 July 3, 2008. So go ask him. This is another example of a reporter trying to trap Rick Perry or another candidate to try to make them look less than reasonable. So why don't you ask the reporters to ask pertinent questions? No, it is not just you. It is all of you liberals who are seeing your standard bearer look worse and worse all of the time. Reasonable people do not see things like that.

[Bill Fleming]

Yes it does matter, DuggerSD. Perry presents the classic Orwellian proposition (from Animal Farm) in dog whistle form. He thinks that some people are more equal than others.

[duggersd]

Perhaps you should expand upon that. Perry thinks some people are more equal than others. That is a rather serious charge. No, what he thinks about Obama's love of country does not matter. It will be apparent as the campaign continues.
President Obama has done and said things that make it sound like he is not overly fond of the country. Witness his apology tour at the beginning of his administration. Witness his choice of pastors that he conveniently cannot remember hearing say nasty things about America. Witness his choice of mentors during his lifetime. Witness his own words as to what is unpatriotic.
You talk about courage. Perhaps if President Obama displayed some courage in his career, you would have a point. Obama has voted "present" rather than take a stand. Obama said he was offering compromises during the debt ceiling negotiations, yet he did not have the courage to write them down. Your whole Democrat party in the Senate has refused to pass a budget because they are afraid to be on record for something. At least the House Republicans have actually had the courage to produce what you call a joke. These people are risking their careers. The cowards you align yourself with are hoping to maybe survive. And you of all people should talk about being cowardly. I do not know of anybody who is less likely to actually answer a question. And when a point is proven, you just overlook it. so don't talk to me about the courage of Perry. Let us see some on your side for a change.

[Bill Fleming]

I answer all your questions, DuggerSD. You just don't like the answers. Here's a clue for you. When you ask a loaded question, you will get a loaded answer. When you ask a dishonest question, you will get a dishonest answer. Your stupid questions will get a stupid answer. I take great pains to respond in kind.

[Bill Fleming]

A little close here, to get us back on topic, and then I'm done with it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html

Nut graf(s):

"Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.

Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect."

[duggersd]

Gee, are we back to that? I thought we were talking about courage. Gaps in evolution? Absolutely. Major ones. And as for scientists manipulating data? You betcha. Don't make me go back and show you again. But you won't believe it anyway. Scientists changing their minds? Yeah, it is happening. I read your quote. He says he "thinks". You are changing it to he "says". Talk about manipulating the data. But that is typical of you and other liberals.
Now, about loaded questions. Just what are those questions being asked of Perry? Blanks? Give me a break. At least be consistent. And please, tell me just how courageous your standard bearer is? BTW, is President Obama unpatriotic by his own standard?

[Dave]

RP from the debate:

To illustrate how unreliable science is with regard to Global Warming, Perry cited Galileo as an example of a scientist who was disputed by fellow scientists. The problem with that is that Galileo was disputed by fundamentalist Christian authorities, not other scientists. You know, the kind of non-scientist, fundamentalists Perry hangs out with.

Pure GENIUS!

[Dave]

mike cooper,
I beg to differ... Obama is polling better than congress, and most voters are figuring out how WE got here. They are not going to vote for BUSH II.

[Dave]

Can I give two (2) thumbs to Bill? There you go Bill, TWO THUMBS UP! The fact that "facts" and "science" seem to have a liberal bias is so, um, well, nevermind...

Say, Gov Perry, Texas is Burning... Why does GOD hate Texas?