on evolution and big bang stuff. Was only trying initially to fill in a small gap in the conversation regarding Carson. I understand from my past involvement on this site how quickly things can escalate and take over. So I'll just end my involvement with this post.
I think there is literally like a .01% chance that his views about the age of the universe, and evolution, came about through anything other than a literal belief in the Bible. In my years reading about and watching debates on this topic, I have NEVER seen a person argue for young Earth or Creationism from any foundation other than the Bible or other religious text, and I think you are giving the benefit of the doubt here way too much credibility when there's no precedent for doing so. I have yet to hear any scientific theory that uses a 6,000 year timeline for the age of the Earth. This always comes as a result of literal biblical reading. If you can give me something from the past say 20 years or so to disprove that notion, would definitely love to see it.
Agreed that this cognitive dissonance is likely to be the main one considering Carson. You could say that for anybody who is simulataneously a brilliant scientist and a YEC. It's hard to even think of a bigger disconnect than that. The problem though is that doesn't diminish how huge a disconnect it is for someone running for president, and it's pretty easy to envision someone with that large of a disconnect having trouble separating his religion from other ways of looking at the world. If you think a person with his beliefs, as strong as they are, would always leave his religious beliefs at the door regarding same sex marriage, abortion, women's rights, funding science, the list goes on and on, then we disagree. I can show you TONS of examples of politicians, in this country, mixing strict religious ideology with policy. To think he'd be different ignores all the examples, and this is what makes this issue such a big one to people like me.
.......
Regarding the rest, look, we just flat out disagree. You seem to charaterize the scientific fact of Darwinian evolution as having arisen in no small meausure due to dogmatic push from scientists. To think that dissenting views are silenced or ignored is demonstrably incorrect. There have been many public debates over decades between evolutionary scientists and others promoting ID/creationism. I've seen some of these debates myself. When you suggest that there hasn't been enough attention given to alternate ideas by evolutionary scientists, you must've forgotten about all these debates.
I don't think you or anyone else who is a proponent of ID/creationism is inherently stupid. I just see it as a reflection of your religious beliefs. As I said, I've yet to see someone promote ID on strict scientific grounds. There's always religious ideology behind it. Again, I'd love to be shown examples to the contrary.