In Monday's edition of The Times, a writer takes issue with Joan King's recent column regarding the current anti-science fervor in politics. The writer describes a faith-based alternative theory for the creation of the universe centered on the belief that "God can easily create something that is already old."
I'm not sure what this has to do with politics and it is certainly his undeniable right to believe these things, but they represent faith and not science. Many believe the two can be reconciled and I have given this a lot of thought in my life, as have many others far more educated or spiritual than me.
I am not expecting any clear answers. However, I do believe that no amount of discussion is likely to fundamentally change what anyone believes spiritually. It is simply too personal.
I appreciate Ms. King's columns and her willingness to discuss some of the more contentious issues of the day. In her column on anti-science fervor, I believe she was saying that when a politician inserts his or her faith-based beliefs into real world politics, it can result in bad science and bad public policy.
We are seeing some of that in the current presidential campaign and it is unfortunate, in my view. The candidates can believe whatever their personal faith tells them. I don't care as long as they recognize where to draw the line in creating policy. For me, that line is very bright and I will reject and work against any candidate who, in my judgment, crosses over it.
I do believe that at least some of this is pandering to the voters, pure and simple. Pandering based on what the panderer believes he or she should be saying is insulting to me as a voter. Yes, they should know better.