Boston Globe endorses Huntsman citing global warming, evolution and renewable energy

Will evolution be a 2012 election issue?

In it endorsement of Jon Huntsman as the GOP presidential candidate, the Boston Globe says,

The priorities he would set for the country, from leading the world in renewable energy to retooling education and immigration policies to help American high-tech industries, are far-sighted. He has stood up far more forcefully than Romney against those in his party who reject evolution and the science behind global warming.

And just how many Republican voters follow New York Times Co.-owned Boston Globe endorsements?

4 thoughts on “Boston Globe endorses Huntsman citing global warming, evolution and renewable energy”

  1. No, that ‘evolution’ thing basically stems from Huntsman’s swipe against Rick Perry back in August, and now it’s being used as a broad-brush swipe against conservatives. A talking point, no more. Now, if only Perry had struck back with the opportunity he had at the time, Huntsman would already be toast: “Huntsman vs. Perry on Global Warming: Recipe for Epic Huntsman/Gore Disaster” http://www.redstate.com/russellc/2011/08/24/huntsman-vs-perry-on-global-warming-recipe-for-epic-huntsmangore-disaster/

  2. Ben,

    I have never understood why it is not possible that both are correct. Is it impossible that the creation proceeded as our studies of evolution describe and that the process was guided by a higher being?

    We know that the Bible is full of allegory. Why do we insist that the Biblical term “one day” must have been 24-hours? Why can it not be an allegorical description of a phase? Must the earth have four corners because the Bible says it does? Look at Darrow’s questioning of Bryan during the Scopes Trial for many other examples.

  3. Of course, that probably is a jab against Perry’s weak-willed response to the excesses of the Texas textbook advisory council, who are an embarassment to our state and nation.

  4. You cannot lump a tautology with a hypothesis.

    Evolution has to have happened. Earth existed before humans, so we either evolved from something else or we popped into existence. As there is absolutely no evidence for poppage, we must have evolved. The rest can be debated, but the basics of “evolution happened” is beyond question.

    Global Warming does have a sound scientific foundation, but all policy suggestions are based of unwarranted extrapolations and predictions from computer models which cannot reproduce the past century of climate, and it involves willfull ignorance of the behavior of natural systems, which have stronge buffering effects against any perturbation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.