Evolution and Climate Change Equivocated. Matthews vs. Pence Interview

[mark kennedy]

Let me say I'm a Democrat, I was fine watching the news shows on the circus in the Trump administration. Then I heard this:

Did you take Biology, did you take science which is all based on evolutionary belief and science and evolutionary belief and assumption…(Chris Matthews, Mike Pence, Do You Believe In Evolution? MSNBC)​

This is a discussion on Global Warming and Climate Change. Pence was bending over backwards to try to get the subject back on track and trust me as an Indiana Democrat, I’m no fan, but this one was clearly out of line.

Just listen to the interview, if you can stand it and let me know, was Matthews out of line and way off topic.

Your thoughts...

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Nithavela]

I don't think he's out of line. In the interview, you can hear Pence waxing on about "clean coal" and exploting the USA's natural resources like oil and gas and that the science of climate change is debated, so I think a question about another topic of science denial is okay, and I find it pretty funny to hear Pence trying to not say anything because you just know doesn't want to say something stupid, but doesn't want to alienate the republican voter base at the same time.

It's a grand example of a politician declining to answer a simple yes and no question for several minutes out of tactical reasons.

 

[naveed]

India has launched its first solar-powered train

 

[naveed]

planting trees in our deserts using solar powered desalination of seawater

 

[naveed]

China to invest £292bn in renewable power by 2020

 

[naveed]

All Volvo cars to be electric or hybrid from 2019

France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040

 

[Nithavela]

All Volvo cars to be electric or hybrid from 2019

France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040

Any info on cars running with clean coal?

 

[naveed]

Any info on cars running with clean coal?

yes USA in 2040

coal

and diesel

Air pollution 'kills 7 million people a year'

 

[naveed]

rest of the world in 2040

solar powered electric flying cars

 

[naveed]

Solar plane makes history after completing round-the-world trip

 

[Desk trauma]

yes USA in 2040

coal

and diesel

Air pollution 'kills 7 million people a year'

Yes, those are the most common forms of passenger vehicles in the US.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think he's out of line. In the interview, you can hear Pence waxing on about "clean coal" and exploting the USA's natural resources like oil and gas and that the science of climate change is debated, so I think a question about another topic of science denial is okay, and I find it pretty funny to hear Pence trying to not say anything because you just know doesn't want to say something stupid, but doesn't want to alienate the republican voter base at the same time.

It's a grand example of a politician declining to answer a simple yes and no question for several minutes out of tactical reasons.

The subject was climate change, this was a clear equivocation. Pence did answer the question and Matthews hardly let him finish a sentence. He was rude, condescending, viscous and it was just drenched in religious intolerance. I could understand if somehow creationism was on the agenda, someone was trying to put it in a schoolbook or pass some law, maybe if it was in the courts. Creationism hasn't been an issue since Dover and that was in the courts, it's never been an issue for Federal lawmakers.

I would have been fine with it if he had brought up the religious intolerance act he passed in Indiana. The anti-abortion laws, if his boss had said something or if he had brought the subject up ever, even once. Pence answered the question, God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them and he had no idea how. That's an answer, that also happens to be a religious opinion was was none of Matthew's business.

 

[Nithavela]

The subject was climate change, this was a clear equivocation. Pence did answer the question and Matthews hardly let him finish a sentence. He was rude, condescending, viscous and it was just drenched in religious intolerance. I could understand if somehow creationism was on the agenda, someone was trying to put it in a schoolbook or pass some law, maybe if it was in the courts. Creationism hasn't been an issue since Dover and that was in the courts, it's never been an issue for Federal lawmakers.

I would have been fine with it if he had brought up the religious intolerance act he passed in Indiana. The anti-abortion laws, if his boss had said something or if he had brought the subject up ever, even once. Pence answered the question, God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them and he had no idea how. That's an answer, that also happens to be a religious opinion was was none of Matthew's business.

I think you missed the name of the show. It's called hardball because the reporter is supposed to ask tough questions that put the interviewed politician in some hot water. I think it was appropriate. If you don't think so, don't watch the show or just ignore that portion if you find the rest okay.

 

[Zoii]

yes USA in 2040

coal

and diesel

Air pollution 'kills 7 million people a year'

That first car looks so cool... well mayb not the smoke tho

 

[mark kennedy]

I think you missed the name of the show. It's called hardball because the reporter is supposed to ask tough questions that put the interviewed politician in some hot water. I think it was appropriate. If you don't think so, don't watch the show or just ignore that portion if you find the rest okay.

I think you missed the point that Pence isn't involved in any public policy regarding creationism. He answered the question and Matthews was arguing in political rhetoric meant to energize his base, that despises the fundamentalist and evangelical communities simply because of what they believe as Christians.

This hasn't been a political issue since the Dover case and it hasn't been an issue for the Federal Congress or the Presidency ever. He is not talking about climate change, he is not talking about clean coal, he is going off into a rant about a religious conviction he clearly equivocates with anyone who doesn't support pumping political power and money into a global warming trend.

 

[Nithavela]

I think you missed the point that Pence isn't involved in any public policy regarding creationism. He answered the question and Matthews was arguing in political rhetoric meant to energize his base, that despises the fundamentalist and evangelical communities simply because of what they believe as Christians.

This hasn't been a political issue since the Dover case and it hasn't been an issue for the Federal Congress or the Presidency ever. He is not talking about climate change, he is not talking about clean coal, he is going off into a rant about a religious conviction he clearly equivocates with anyone who doesn't support pumping political power and money into a global warming trend.

I think the correlation between climate change scepticism and scepticism in the veracity of the theory of evolution is pretty obvious and has been well reported. It's not this reporter that joined those two issues together, it's the science deniers of the USA who did so.

Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces – Mother Jones

 

[Vylo]

As someone who burns fossil fuels for a living, it drives me nuts that people don't realize how bad pollution is and that global warming is very real and could present "challenges" to put it mildly.

At least as part of the problem I can help mitigate it a bit.

 

[bhsmte]

Let me say I'm a Democrat, I was fine watching the news shows on the circus in the Trump administration. Then I heard this:

Did you take Biology, did you take science which is all based on evolutionary belief and science and evolutionary belief and assumption…(Chris Matthews, Mike Pence, Do You Believe In Evolution? MSNBC)​

This is a discussion on Global Warming and Climate Change. Pence was bending over backwards to try to get the subject back on track and trust me as an Indiana Democrat, I’m no fan, but this one was clearly out of line.

Just listen to the interview, if you can stand it and let me know, was Matthews out of line and way off topic.

Your thoughts...

Grace and peace,
Mark

Matthews pushed him a bit hard, but I don't think it was over the top.

This is my personal opinion; I am always going to be leery, of any politician who holds a powerful office, not being able to acknowledge that evolutionary theory, is well evidenced and has also done a lot to help modern medicine (which it has). Not being able to acknowledge this reality, is scary to me.

 

[mark kennedy]

Matthews pushed him a bit hard, but I don't think it was over the top.

This is my personal opinion; I am always going to be leery, of any politician who holds a powerful office, not being able to acknowledge that evolutionary theory, is well evidenced and has also done a lot to help modern medicine (which it has). Not being able to acknowledge this reality, is scary to me.

He did answer it more then once. He also said you have to acknowledge the assumptions of science which are the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. When this stuff gets political it gets bad. If you want to talk about climate change that is certainly political but religious convictions are none of your business if the other person doesn't want to talk about it. On top of that it's a blatant equivocation of being skeptical of climate change and believing God created life. It was out of line, over the top and just dripped with religious intolerance. They would never have allowed a Muslim being ridiculed for their beliefs on that show.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think the correlation between climate change scepticism and scepticism in the veracity of the theory of evolution is pretty obvious and has been well reported. It's not this reporter that joined those two issues together, it's the science deniers of the USA who did so.

Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces – Mother Jones

Because it's science this and evolution that and it's always mutually exclusive with anything remotely theistic. Then they come and pontificate about the weather claiming they have the solution. But it will cost billions world wide which empowers another generation of liberal politicians, and conservative for that matter, to continue to ridicule religion for political gain. I'm beginning to think this is about a lot more the carbon emissions.