So tell me about Ben Carson...

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Actually, I’ve said many times that Carson is not qualified to be President. My positive statements about him are meant to:

a) defend him from criticism that he’s somehow stupid or crazy. The guy’s a national hero and one of the most accomplished members of one of the toughest professions. There’s a reason that people say about tasks, “It’s not brain surgery” or “It’s not rocket science”. Because brain surgeons and rocket scientists are really amazing people!

He may be a great surgeon, but based on multiple things he’s said he’s a complete idiot on history, politics, and science. And he’s a religious fanatic. It’s reasonable to judge his intellect on mind set by what he’s said (in addition to any professional achievements). What he’s said takes away nothing from his medical accomplishments, but his medical accomplishments in no way make up for what he’s said. Entirely different spheres, and he’s a complete failure as a rational, thinking person in non-medical spheres.

[adaher]

He’s ignorant on those subjects. That does not make him an idiot. If he pulls it all together by the fall, that’ll prove how brilliant he is.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Carson knows about evolution, it just conflicts with his religious beliefs, so he rejects it. But he’s not ignorant of evolution.

@adaher

He’s ignorant on those subjects. That does not make him an idiot. If he pulls it all together by the fall, that’ll prove how brilliant he is.

:dubious:

He’s willfully ignorant, which does make him an idiot.

[Jackmannii]

@adaher

He’s ignorant on those subjects. That does not make him an idiot. If he pulls it all together by the fall, that’ll prove how brilliant he is.

And if that doesn’t happen, there’s still on-the-job training.

His “candidacy” has had one salutary effect - reminding us that accomplishment in one difficult field (neurosurgery) does not translate to brilliance in partially or completely unrelated ones.

If Carson does run, he should consider having Russell Blaylock on his ticket as VP candidate. Two dippy neurosurgeons for the price of one (Blaylock would provide racial balance, but more importantly, he’d absolutely sew up the woo/loon vote).

[Donald_Rump]

@adaher

He’s ignorant on those subjects. That does not make him an idiot. If he pulls it all together by the fall, that’ll prove how brilliant he is.

Likening Obamacare to the institution of SLAVERY is not a reflection of policy ignorance but flat-out idiocy. I don’t see how you can seriously argue otherwise.

Ditto for his comment on prison rape proving that homosexuality is a choice, and myriad other idiotic comments.

[BobLibDem]

My evolving theory on Carson is that he doesn’t really believe the nonsense coming out of his mouth, he’s just trying to endear himself to the right wing of the Republican Party. Maybe he believes in evolution but is afraid to admit for fear of not being “right” enough. If you want to be king of the rubes one strategy might be to act like one yourself.

[eschereal]

No. He is a 7th-Day Adventist. That is a synonym for “biblical literalist”. Not much room in that for evolution to come in.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Who knows, maybe he’s punking us.

I really do not credit Ben Carson with that much imagination or whimsy.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@adaher

Have any Presidents that didn’t believe in evolution ever talked about making local schools not teach it?

Saint Ronnie argued for equal time for creationism.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Have any Presidents that didn’t believe in evolution ever talked about making local schools not teach it?

That’s the nice thing about Presidents who believe in intelligent design. They also believe in local control of schools.

Nope, that is not nice at all, what you are doing is defending the spread of ignorance. And Bush the Lesser did push for that too.

Home | National Center for Science Education

During a press conference with a group of Texas reporters on August 1, 2005, President George W Bush responded to a question about teaching “intelligent design” in the public schools. The reporter referred to “what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus ‘intelligent design’” and asked, “What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?” In response, Bush referred to his days as governor of Texas, when “I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught … so people can understand what the debate is about.” (It is noteworthy that Bush tacitly equated “intelligent design” and creationism.)

…

NCSE was widely consulted for comment. The New York Times (2005 Aug 3) quoted NCSE’s Susan Spath on the specious appeal to fairness: “It sounds like you’re being fair, but creationism is a sectarian religious viewpoint, and ‘intelligent design’ is a sectarian religious viewpoint,” she said. “It’s not fair to privilege one religious viewpoint by calling it the other side of evolution.” NCSE’s Glenn Branch concurred, telling the Los Angeles Times (2005 Aug 3) that because “[t]he question was presented to him as a fairness issue,” it was not surprising that Bush expressed the view that “both sides ought to be taught.” Branch also told the Financial Times (2005 Aug 3) that “Bush would have done better to heed his White House science adviser, John Marburger, who [has] said that evolution was the ‘cornerstone of modern biology’ and who has characteri[z]ed ID as not even being a scientific theory.”

…

A welcome congressional response appeared in the following month. Writing as a guest columnist on the popular TPMCafe blog (2005 Sep 8; available on-line at ), Representative Rush Holt (D–New Jersey) — one of the very few research scientists who serve in Congress — contributed a piece entitled “Intelligent design: It’s not even wrong.” “As a research scientist and a member of the House Education Committee,” Holt wrote:

I was appalled when President Bush signaled his support for the teaching of 'intelligent design' alongside evolution in public K–12 science classes. Though I respect and consistently protect the rights of persons of faith and the curricula of religious schools, public school science classes are not the place to teach concepts that cannot be backed up by evidence and tested experimentally.

He added, “It is irresponsible for President Bush to cast ‘intelligent design’ — a repackaged version of creationism — as the ‘other side’ of the evolution ‘debate.’” His incisive essay ends with the sobering thought, “When the tenets of critical thinking and scientific investigation are weakened in our classrooms, we are weakening our nation. That is why I think the President’s off-hand comment about ‘intelligent design’ as the other side of the debate over evolution is such a great disservice to Americans.”

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Saint Ronnie argued for equal time for creationism.

While he was president?

[running_coach]

@John_Mace

While he was president?

During his campaign.

In reference to the theory of evolution Reagan declared, “I have a great many questions about it. It is a theory, it is a scientific theory only. And in recent years it has been challenged in the world of science and is not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was. I think that recent discoveries down through the years have pointed up great flaws in it.” He then added that if the theory of evolution is to be taught in public schools, so should the Biblical version of the origin of human life.

[Zakalwe]

@adaher

He’s ignorant on those subjects. That does not make him an idiot. If he pulls it all together by the fall, that’ll prove how brilliant he is.

The man is 64 fucking years old. How much time do we have to give him?

Look at this way, if he’s about to operate on you, would you want him to say “You know, this new surgical method has killed the last two patients, but my faith tells me it will work!” No, you wouldn’t. Ben Carson (I assume given his success) applies science in his chosen field. It is therefore inexcusable that he can’t seem to apply it anywhere else.

[BrainGlutton]

@Zakalwe

The man is 64 fucking years old. How much time do we have to give him?

Look at this way, if he’s about to operate on you, would you want him to say “You know, this new surgical method has killed the last two patients, but my faith tells me it will work!” No, you wouldn’t. Ben Carson (I assume given his success) applies science in his chosen field. It is therefore inexcusable that he can’t seem to apply it anywhere else.

“The human mind has compartments, and sometimes they are watertight compartments.”

– Avram Davidson

[computergeek]

Carson wants to keep LGBT ‘personal’ http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/politics/ben-carson-lgbt-issues-personal/

The guy is clueless

[eschereal]

No, he get squicked out thinking about gay sex. Because, that is all there is to being gay, that squicky stuff, and he does not want to be reminded of it. If there’s anybody watching.

[adaher]

That’s part of his strategy to just not talk about LGBT issues. He needs to get better at it. It’s still early though, and the fact that this thread has been inactive for a whole two weeks shows he is getting better. Baby steps, anyway.

[iiandyiiii]

Ben Carson’s diary (NSFW text [The Onion]).

[adaher]

I’m going to make a prediction. Drum roll, please…

Ben Carson will be a MUCH better candidate by fall than he is now and will win at least 300 delegates. Rick Santorum won 267 in 2012. Rick Santorum is just as extreme on social issues as Carson, but is a more experienced politician, only with pretty much no accomplishments and a very uninspiring biography. Carson should easily be able to outdo him.

[tomndebb]

Which simply means that with some effective coaching, he can be a more viable candidate than Sarah Palin while still bringing nothing to the table in terms of the ability to govern–either in terms of the ability to actually form and lead a coherent government or in terms of understanding the issues in a way that makes his policies either effective or correct.