Evolution and climate change

At least one current presidential candidate does not believe in the theory of evolution (except, he allows, in a "micro" sense).

Well, apart from some bemusement, why should I care? After all, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which a vital presidential decision will hinge on said president's understanding of the origin of the biosphere.  Perhaps this candidate, if elected, would be like the robot QT-1 in Isaac Asimov's short story "Reason", which carries out its duties flawlessly despite embedding them in a web of bizarre beliefs.

The trouble is that in order to hold a anti-evolutionist position, one has to cope somehow with the fact that the vast majority of professionally qualified scientists see it as fundamentally mistaken.  There are standard strategies for doing this: suggest that the scientific consensus is founded on a shared, mistaken ideology; magnify the significance of disagreements and discrepancies within the consensus; and hint that the consensus is on the point of disintegration.  (To see these strategies in action, take a look at Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial.)

But these strategies, once they are deployed, are conveniently available to avoid listening to any other uncomfortable news from scientists.  When a candidate calls climate science "an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life", you can see the same strategy at work.  And it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which a vital presidential decision will hinge on said president's understanding of the extent to which humanity's actions press up against the limits of the earth's carrying capacity.

Of course we all bring values, beliefs, and fears to the table when we discuss climate change, and still more when we discuss policy actions in response - such discussions are never a matter simply of neutral "facts". (Mike Hulme's book Why We Disagree About Climate Change is a wonderful guide to this complex territory.)  But one thing we can't bring to the table is a set of earplugs that will allow us to avoid listening to things we don't like.

I fear that one of the side-effects of "scientific creationism" may be to provide some of my fellow-believers with a comfortable, multi-purpose set of earplugs.