Since this is America, Matt Damon’s views on politics are important to…. somebody. I came across this video a while ago and it reminded me of a subject that interests me on occasion. To what extent does a person’s views on evolution, seven day creation, and related topics bar one from holding the presidency? Basically, Damon is implying that to hold that dinosaurs were around four thousand years ago (or a similar diminutive number, most likely) is about on the level of thinking that the world is flat, or that the sky is made of panda bears: it’s basically crazy. Moreover, that view demonstrates such a gross flaw in reasoning that it disqualifies one from holding higher office – after all, you will have the “nuclear codes”.
I’m not particularly sold on this. Is Damon really suggesting that if Palin was a skilled diplomat, economist, or what have you, that he would disqualify her on such a narrow criteria? Also, what are the political ramifications of believing in four thousand year old dinosaurs anyway? Is she not going to fund NIH or something? I don’t get it.
Having said that, in some sense Damon’s concern is not completely out of the ballpark. I would feel wierd voting for someone who believed they had a past life in the lost city of Atlantis. But I guess I’m not convinced the two are entirely equal, and even if they were, I don’t think I would write off the reincarnated Atlantean.
I think Matt Damon’s concerns are valid, in some sense. I think it is true of most human beings, that we use certain statements or views on issues as a litmus test of sorts on a person’s ability to engage in what we perceive to be “rational thought”.
However, I think Mr. Damon should be more concerned about Sarah Palin’s desire to uphold the Constitution, than her beliefs on how long ago dinosaurs roamed the Earth. A would-be politician’s views of natural rights, the just war theory, and the sanctity of human life should be much more important to us than whether or not she uses phrases she learned down at the local ice hockey rink.
Also, what are the political ramifications of believing in four thousand year old dinosaurs anyway?
The ramifications are twofold:
a) the politician is more likely to undermine support for public school teaching of evolution (Palin has taken the “teach the controversy” tack)
b) the politician’s mere presence in public debate, along with the “objectivity” of the American media, perpetuates the idea that “young earth” creationism is a viable/serious worldview
If a politician wants to raise limited and arguably plausible criticisms of evolution, ala irreducible complexity, I can accept that. I don’t think there’s a valid argument to be made, but there are still questions open for rational debate. It’s 2009 though, and yes, believing that the earth is 6000 years old, that dinosaurs walked around with people or that God planted the fossils and created faux-old light from stars and angels and demons fighting caused the craters on the moon, is easily as absurd as believing the world is flat. Maybe moreso – I could almost see someone clever re-imagining spacetime and demonstrating the latter
Even if there were no political ramifications, it’s a fundamentally absurd belief, and I think my reaction to hearing someone holds that belief is fairly similar to Damon’s. And I realize it’s a religiously motivated belief, but in this post-Enlightenment age we tend to believe when science man and religion man get in a fight, science man wins. Science man
Paul,
Thanks for dropping by. This is the part that confuses me the most:
“Even if there were no political ramifications, it’s a fundamentally absurd belief, and I think my reaction to hearing someone holds that belief is fairly similar to Damon’s.”
Seriously? You’re telling me that even if Sarah Palin shared your positions on foreign policy, health care, cap+trade, taxation levels, etc. that you still would vote against her on the basis of her beliefs on dinosaurs and probable views on evolution?