Wednesday, 21 September 2011 21:46

Republican candidates should balance science, beliefs

By Robert Sinners, Second-year public administration graduate student
viewpoints@dailygamecock.com
Rate this item
(6 votes)

GOP needs to embrace fact, faith to be successful in campaigns

As a political junkie, it's a truly daunting task to understand the abilities, ideologies and motivations of the candidates campaigning for the 2012 Republican party nomination.

This may be the most important presidential race in our history and we need the most qualified, not the most popular, candidate to provide the leadership necessary to restore our country. This may be the last chance to reel in excessive spending and restore faith in our government and society at large. Our culture is in decline, and unfortunately I do not feel that the promises touted by President Obama have been recognized and implemented, as gridlock has plagued the federal government like never before.

In seeking an alternative to the current administration, we must consider that a replacement in the White House could derail our country's success faster than the current administration could ever do. In an already mediocre field, it's a shame to see candidates that reject exploring scientific principles and demonize any sense of progress. The ignorance of our country has taken a firm hold in the message being broadcast by some in the 2012 presidential field.

Already, candidates have claimed ridiculous assertions. It seems that any mention of climate change is a scarlet letter. I would ask the same who reject the theory to inhale exhaust fumes, and report back to me on their findings. While I support traditional marriage, I don't think alternatives lead to "Horse-Man love." Further, the suggestion that a vaccination in adolescent girls will lead to mental retardation clearly tells me that the candidate has had that vaccination herself.

The theory of evolution, so denied by the most conservative base, does not conflict with creationism. In fact, humans are constantly evolving whether we accept that fact or not.

Politicizing science is dangerous, but it's also dangerous to abandon faith for science. Doing so has actually brought forth a cultural decline as society looks to medicine and technology to provide spiritual satisfaction rather than introspective evaluation and reflection most faiths provide. By understanding ways to supplement our lives with science and abiding by a moral code to regulate those advances, we can all reach prosperity as a society. Nevertheless, the fact that faith in science is now an integral part of a political litmus test truly frightens me.

Any candidate who earns the Republican nomination must have faith and a firm grasp of both scientific and moral principles. We cannot afford to continue down this road we are on. By nominating a candidate who not only objects to scientific progress, but outright rejects consideration and study of those findings as well, we will only create a more devastating situation for our future.

3 comments

  • Comment Link Kyle Jackson Thursday, 22 September 2011 12:29 posted by Kyle Jackson

    I agree with a lot of your points in this article, however the statement "The theory of evolution...does not conflict with creationism" is not true. Evolution absolutely disproves creationism, but not Christianity. Christianity and creationism cannot be used synonymously.

    This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
  • Comment Link GW Thursday, 22 September 2011 16:36 posted by GW

    Interesting viewpoint, the next presidential term, whether with Obama's Administration or a Republican one, will be inheriting an economy in shambles, a country which is less inclined to civic involvement, and diminished international standing for a country who has led the way in opening doors for globalization and international peace in the 30 years that they have been the only superpower in the world. If we do not choose carefully we could easily end up with a candidate so focused on social issues that they neglect the fiscal ones or worse a candidate that cannot beat Obama, thus allowing the detrimental policies and practices to continue.

    This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
  • Comment Link Ryan Monday, 26 September 2011 12:41 posted by Ryan

    So, essentially, you're saying that how one governs should not be influenced by what one believes? How, then, do we govern? Based off of something that someone *else* believes? If you say we govern by science, what happens when they're are conflicting pieces of evidence - each seeming to "prove" one side or the other?

    "The theory of evolution, so denied by the most conservative base, does not conflict with creationism. In fact, humans are constantly evolving whether we accept that fact or not."

    ^^ Incorrect. Creationism is a belief in an intelligent designer who created everything. Evolution, at it's very core, contradicts this very point.

    Overral, there are some pretty glaring logical problems with your article, and I'm surprised a "political junkie" would publish something of this quality.

    This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Add comment


Out of the following options being considered, which musical act would you most like to see Carolina Productions bring to campus next semester?

Goo Goo Dolls - 25.4%
Fun. - 17.7%
Ben Folds Five - 14.4%
Gavin DeGraw - 11.3%
Cobra Starship - 6%
Snow Patrol - 7.3%
Other/None of the Above - 17.9%

Total votes: 1952
The voting for this poll has ended on: 26 Apr 2012 - 13:08