Huckabee's Dissent over Evolution

During a debate recently, Republican candidate Mike Huckabee (along with two other Republican worthies, Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback) said that he does not believe in evolution. The remark drew exclaim and criticism from many quarters. Many also asked whether a political figure's personal views held any relevance to his perceived ability or competency for the office of the president of the United States.

So, should the personal views of a presidential candidate hold any signifance for the electorate? Actually, yes. Huckabee's views, even if they are ones that he holds on a topic that has no political bearing, are important.

This is so because evolution is a matter of science, and not of individual faith. The question of how life originated on Earth, and the process by which different life forms evolved, is as much the realm of science, as, say, the rationale behind how electricity works.

Accepted, the evolutionary theory is itself still 'evolving'. Also, it has its critics, even within the scientific world itself. Having said that, it remains the most plausible argument that has been put forward to explain the divergence of life on Earth, so what if all the loose threads have not been tied up yet.

Huckabee uses the argument of intelligent design to support his stand. However, the 'scientific' theory of intelligent design is full of holes, and infinitely inferior to the evolution theory. In rejecting evolution in favor of intelligent design, Huckabee shows that he lacks a grasp of the essentials of objective reasoning—a lack that could be dangerous when present in a man running to be the president of the United States of America.