Whether you’re Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell or Illinois gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady, you need to learn to STFU on creationism vs. evolutionism.

First off, it isn’t even a debate—creationists cannot engage in a logical rational debate on any matter of faith. That’s rather a key element of faith—you can discuss facts and observations, but pretty soon your facts and observations will run out and you need to depend on belief and conviction. Faith exists independent of fact, and fact exists regardless of faith This not only why the Pope, for example, insists that science and faith must be reconciled (truth is truth), but also why guys like ‘Puter get annoyed with worshippers on the other end of this opinion…folks that think that any matter of logic and reason can be simply wished away as faith and belief, and that facts do not matter. Facts do matter. But you cannot confuse them with faith.

Second, the whole question so often asked of candidates (which, let’s be honest, comes down to “do you support evolution or creationism?”) is in many ways a false choice. Many religions have little trouble accepting the two as different sides of the same coin. Candidates are tricked into picking one over the other, when in reality, they very likely do not know the full spectrum of evolutionary theory, nor can they explain their core religious understanding of creation. This is, instead, a trick to polarize voters.

Voters who accept the reality of evolution will not suddenly vote for a candidate based on his or her appreciation for scientific reasoning. Some might, but the total for any candidate is probably less than seven. Likewise, a voter sitting on the fence is highly unlikely to switch his vote because a candidate believes in Genesis as a literal description of factual event. While the media like to reduce voter choices to identity politics (“I gotta vote for her, because although she will raise taxes, control guns, or outlaw my cigar smoking, she went to the same bible study class I did”), the real-life, human voter tends to vote for candidates based on a spectrum of political positions. And evolution vs. creationism will not, truth be told, ever be a tie-breaker.

Instead, your position statement will only serve as leverage against you, no matter which answer you give. If you state that evolution is a fact, it will be pointed out that (a) you believe in eugenics, (b) that Darwin believed racial superiority is the result of evolution, and that (c) there are facts about basic natural science that evolution cannot explain. All of which are wrong, by the way.

Similarly, if you support the Genesis-version of creation, you will be branded as someone who (a) believes the earth is only 5,000 years old, (b) is stupid, and (c) you wish to destroy scientific progress in schools. All of which are equally wrong.

The smart politician could take the approach of other smart politicians who have appeared in the last two years. When asked for your beliefs, glare at the questioner and say:

Our economy is in the hole. People are not working. Everything is shutting down out there, and you think the most important question in the world is whether I think the entire universe was created in six days, or whether a hippo might be related distantly to a whale. Is that what you worry about? Because I can introduce you to a family of six that is now on food stamps just because they can’t afford breakfast cereal in the morning. You can ask them what they think. Or you can ask my opponent, who can also introduce you to a different family of six who lost everything they worked hard for and now are moving in with their retired parents. This question is not important to people. It is only important to people who are looking to bad-mouth candidates for one reason or another because they have nothing else to hate. How about this: I believe in the creation of jobs, and I believe in evolving the economy past the mess we have today. And that’s what voters need to worry about, not stuff better argued out in college dorm rooms.

For that would be a very nice answer indeed. And politicians of either party are free to use this.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.