Althouse: "Trump, the businessman, tells Americans how the financial system is rigged against them. Carson, the brain surgeon, tells them how they are being denied knowledge."

September 8, 2015

"Trump, the businessman, tells Americans how the financial system is rigged against them. Carson, the brain surgeon, tells them how they are being denied knowledge."

"It doesn’t seem to matter that he is a man of science who does not believe in evolution and has called climate change 'irrelevant': he is an ideologue with the trappings of a technocrat.... In lieu of specifics, Carson tends to say that as a surgeon he has experience 'doing complex things' and making snap life-or-death decisions."

From a New Yorker piece by Amy Davidson about Ben Carson. (Open to nonsubscribers.)

53 comments:

Jaq said...: I guess it is "flood the zone" time against Carson this week. Whatever. Anybody who makes their knees knock like this goes up in my estimation.; 9/8/15, 11:25 AM
MadisonMan said...: Not a fan of articles that pull out quotes and use them out of context.; 9/8/15, 11:30 AM
Robert J. said...: Racism straight up.; 9/8/15, 11:33 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: I'm not nearly smart enough to be a brain surgeon but my nuttiness is completely harmless so that makes me better than Ben Carson.; 9/8/15, 11:34 AM
YoungHegelian said...: Liberals will try to paint Carson as specifically a "right-wing nut job" because he doesn't believe in evolution.

Not so. Carson, as a black 7th Day Adventist, is part of a large chunk of the Protestant black community that doesn't believe in evolution. It's not because he's right wing he doesn't believe in evolution. It's because of his brand of faith.

The left wing has trouble looking the faith communities in the eyes in general, but there is no other community than that gives them more trouble than the black church. White progressives rail on & on about how stupid believers are, never admitting were it not for the mass votes of the most religious ethnic group in the country, none of their candidates would ever hold office.; 9/8/15, 11:34 AM
traditionalguy said...: The real Climate scientists know that Global Warming end of the world predictions are a total hoax based on computer runs using imaginary sensitivity levels to co2 trace gas and backed by faked temperature readings that can only produce irrelevant disaster predictions that are then called the Data.

So Carson wins again.; 9/8/15, 11:37 AM
Thorley Winston said...: I’m curious if the author explored Dr. Carson’s views on vaccinations, GMO foods and nuclear energy. I’m guessing not as they probably don’t support the narrative of which side is “anti-science.”; 9/8/15, 11:38 AM
MayBee said...: Does he not "believe" in evolution, or does his faith not believe in evolution?

And what will he do about evolution, if he is elected? Will he arrest people who believe in evolution? Put teachers of evolution in prison? Try to counter evolution by making laws that give women economic justice if it turns out men are better at the skills it currently takes to prosper economically?; 9/8/15, 11:41 AM
MayBee said...: I wonder if he's smart enough to write his own speeches.; 9/8/15, 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: I like Carson. His story is wonderful. Would he be my choice for POTUS? No, I think we have learned that it's not an OJT position. Would I love to see him as a VP? sure.; 9/8/15, 11:43 AM
Big Mike said...: @traditionalguy, you beat me to it.

I'll merely add that 1000 years ago the climate in the Northern Hemisphere was warm enough that Viking colonies could flourish for hundreds of years using nothing more than Medieval farming technology. I'd like to see AGW hoaxers try doing that today! Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?; 9/8/15, 11:45 AM
chuckR said...: How many of us believe that the doctrine of their church is inerrant and unchanging in every respect?
If Dr. Carson really believes in a six solar day creation and that dino fossils are God's little joke, then I'm sure the MSM will get that out of him. The link doesn't cite any statements of his or even if he is more devout that the current President.
As to the his comment on the irrelevancy of climate change, context please. Is he saying that it is irrelevant because we can't change it? Personally, I think the idea that there is a giant thermostat we can control is sillier than a six day creation.; 9/8/15, 11:51 AM
cubanbob said...: "It doesn’t seem to matter that he is a man of science who does not believe in evolution and has called climate change 'irrelevant': he is an ideologue with the trappings of a technocrat.... In lieu of specifics, Carson tends to say that as a surgeon he has experience 'doing complex things' and making snap life-or-death decisions."

The unintended irony and self-parody in this quote is nearly off the scale. Yes the disciples of Scientific Marxism which is what the AGW movement is all about is giving lectures on pseudo-science with the trappings of technocrats.; 9/8/15, 11:51 AM
Hagar said...: The presidency is very much an "on the job training" position.
It is a one-off job, and no one is ever ready for the next emergency. The experience from the previous one is likely what brought it on in the first place.; 9/8/15, 11:53 AM
tim maguire said...: Not only is AGW not proven, but, even if true, there is no reason to think it will be a bad thing.

Still not voting for Carson, though. He's surely very intelligent, but a good president will surround himself with smart people and they will inevitably do most of the thinking for him. That's Obama's biggest problem--he lacks the humility that would allow him to assemble a competent staff. That he himself is of modest intellect did not need to be such a problem. Would Carson, with no government experience, be able to build a team that can make the right calls? I have my doubts.; 9/8/15, 11:54 AM
damikesc said...: Climate change is bullshit (the climate has ALWAYS changed...Ice Ages start and end and have for millennia). Making a "theory" that is impossible to falsify doesn't make it scientific. It makes it theocratic.

If Dr. Carson really believes in a six solar day creation and that dino fossils are God's little joke, then I'm sure the MSM will get that out of him.

I dunno. They seemed oddly uninterested in what Obama's church taught.; 9/8/15, 11:54 AM
damikesc said...: Not only is AGW not proven

It's worse than that. It is the ONLY "scientific" theory that one cannot possibly falsify. EVERYTHING "proves" it.

"It's really cold outside? Yes. That is because warming has caused changes in weather patterns. Colder temperatures are to be expected"

"It's really hot outside? Yes. That is because of warming. Obviously"

When a "science" has to keep adjusting temperatures from the PAST that were "accurate" a year ago, you're going far from science.; 9/8/15, 11:56 AM
Hagar said...: I have not followed Ben Carson much, but what I have heard makes sense. He just says it so softly it is easy to miss that he said anything.
He does know right from wrong, and if he had the ego to do what he did in his day-job, it is probably adequate for the presidency too.; 9/8/15, 11:56 AM
Known Unknown said...: "Would Carson, with no government experience"

Feature, not bug.

Because as we've witnessed, outside of winning world wars and building interstates, government experience is vastly overrated.; 9/8/15, 11:58 AM
Unknown said...: From a New Yorker HIT piece by Amy Davidson about Ben Carson.

FIFY; 9/8/15, 12:00 PM
Ken B said...: A New Yorker piece, free for us hoi-polloi non-subscribers? Gee, that's mighty kind, mighty kind. It wouldn't be a screedy partisan piece would it?; 9/8/15, 12:06 PM
n.n said...: Evolution is a chaotic process. Origin is an article of faith. Science is a frame-based philosophy and method that implicitly acknowledges people's limited perspective, and was specifically designed to constrain secular excess of both people with an acknowledged faith and especially "secular" individuals with a hidden faith.

That said, the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based on an incomplete model or estimate of the Earth system. Despite claims to the contrary, the system is not only incompletely, but actually insufficiently characterized, and unwieldy. The CAGW theory is less a scientific than philosophical prophecy of the system's evolution.

It's ironic that Evolutionists claim the anthropomorphic theory but frequently reject the known principles and conflate logical domains. Even so far as to normalize or promote orientations and behaviors that are antithetical to evolutionary fitness, up to and including voluntary genocide (e.g. selective-child).

Brain (i.e. physical object) surgery is engineering and well within the scientific domain. People who recognize the difference between logical domains, including faith, will have no difficulty navigating its path. Whether the brain is the origin or expression of consciousness is irrelevant to skillful manipulation of the object, but may be relevant to determining the individual's final character.

Finally, Carson respects individual dignity, recognizes intrinsic value, and appreciates natural imperatives. We probably want someone who is capable of reconciling these interests without a selective doctrine and principles that have a predisposition to create moral hazards and millions of dead bodies, harvested and tafficked.; 9/8/15, 12:08 PM
Brando said...: I'd have to see actual quotes from Carson before I believe he believes those things. There's a big difference between "Global warming has not been conclusively proven to be caused by human activity" and "who cares if the earth gets warmer?" As for what he believes about evolution--has he flat out said "evolution is bunk, the earth was created by God within a week just a few thousand years ago and the fossils were his way to test our faith"? Or was it something more along the lines of "as a man of science I have some unorthodox thoughts on Darwin's theory..."?

Of course if the media ever got a real interviewer inside Hillary's inner circle they might be able to ask her some questions about how her professed Christianity is affected by her willingness to support unrestricted abortion, even in cases of sex selection or race selection.; 9/8/15, 12:09 PM
cubanbob said...: Trump the businessman and Carson the brain surgeon are telling the obvious truths and Biden The Brainless and Hillary The Grifter and Sanders The Communist are lamenting the state of the economy after nearly seven years of their party's ministrations as if they and they are the new kids, the outsiders and the author of this piece implies that Carson is an ideologue and a fool. The New Yorker ought to ditch the writers and keep the cartoons, their circulation and ad rates will both increase.; 9/8/15, 12:12 PM
MayBee said...: How she ends her "article":

His success in the polls may be best understood as desperation on the part of voters who have rejected political experience as a test of competence. But it should take more than a Carson shot to navigate this Presidential campaign, which has been played, so far, with all the reckless abandon of a Foosball game, and with little of the joy. ♦

How does she know about the joy he is experience? Or is his success not giving her joy?; 9/8/15, 12:18 PM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: And what will he do about evolution, if he is elected?

Its a shibboleth to certain people. It signals that you love you some freaking science and are thus of the right sort.

http://www.ilovesciencestore.com/trending-topics/lol.html; 9/8/15, 12:18 PM
MayBee said...: And "desperation"? What schlock.

I'm not a Carson for President person. But this column is just a criticism of Carson looking for a basis.; 9/8/15, 12:20 PM
Michael K said...: I thought it was a surprisingly fair piece until the last few paragraphs.

The lefties are obsessed with evolution. My daughter who is a lefty was worried about a Texas school board that approved teaching creation along with evolution in science classes. I asked her what is more important; being able to read and do math or believe in evolution? She admitted reading and math were more important, especially in elementary grades, She is the reasonable one among my three leftist children.

I don't know what the other two would say as we don't talk about this.; 9/8/15, 12:23 PM
Sebastian said...: Carson should just say: I love Canada so much, we should do everything in our power to make sure it will never be covered with ice again.; 9/8/15, 12:31 PM
Sebastian said...: "desperation on the part of voters who have rejected political experience as a test of competence"

Funny. I don't recall such desperation cited in 2008.; 9/8/15, 12:33 PM
chuck said...: has called climate change 'irrelevant'..

Ha, ha, she writes that as if it were a bad thing. The New Yorker is all about maintaining convention.; 9/8/15, 12:39 PM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: The lefties are obsessed with evolution.

Its on their list of approved things to believe in.

Most people don't give a crap about anybodies opinion on evolution, and a surprising number of people don't actually believe in it.

http://www.livescience.com/42251-politics-evolution-belief.html; 9/8/15, 12:45 PM
CJinPA said...: All things considered, I prefer a candidate who doesn't scoff at evolution. In part, because I want to win a presidential election.; 9/8/15, 12:53 PM
MayBee said...: As far as I know, Carson doesn't scoff at evolution. Here are the kind of "outrageous" things he says:

Carson has spoken publicly about his views on evolution and creationism, once telling a convention of the National Science Teachers: “Evolution and creationism both require faith. It’s just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.”

The letter says that Carson has made comments that suggest people who believe in evolution do not have ethics. In an article in the Adventist Review, Carson was quoted as saying, “By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior.”

“For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want,” Carson was quoted as saying in the Review. “You make everything relative, and there’s no reason for any of our higher values.”

But Carson told Inside Higher Ed that the Review article had not published his complete quote and that he does not think evolutionists are unethical. Here’s what he told Inside Higher Ed:

“It would have been extremely courteous if they had asked me whether it was true that I said people who are evolutionist are unethical, which I never did. Those of us who believe in God and derive our sense of right and wrong and ethics from God’s word really have no difficulty whatsoever defining where our ethics come from. People who believe in survival of the fittest might have more difficulty deriving where their ethics come from. A lot of evolutionists are very ethical people.”

I don't think it's healthy to get in the game of pretending every religious person is unfit for office because religion isn't sciencey.; 9/8/15, 12:59 PM
Sam L. said...: Clearly, Amy is a RAAAAACIST.; 9/8/15, 1:06 PM
Brando said...: It's all a form of social signalling--no president has ever had to make any decision that would have been affected by their belief (or nonbelief) of evolution, and as for Global Warming it makes no difference what the president thinks because it won't affect their policy choices (an anti-carbon emissions policy can be defended or opposed for reasons having nothing to do with global warming).

Instead, this is a way of determining whether someone is on "our team" or "the others". Believe in evolution (whatever it means to "believe" in it)? They you probably aren't comfortable around gun nuts (except during campaign times, when John Kerry will shoot up any animal he wants to win over some rubes), probably think the "rich" (a slippery definition) should pay their "fair share" (because obviously they don't) and that religious fanatics are forcing young women to get their abortions in back alleys. You're probably the right kind of person, who hangs with celebrities on the cocktail circuit and read the New Yorker.

Don't believe in evolution? Ugh, you're probably the sort of hot-dog eating mouth-breather who enjoys Larry the Cable Guy and Alan Jackson! We know all we need to know about you, nutjob!; 9/8/15, 1:13 PM
Brando said...: "Clearly, Amy is a RAAAAACIST."

Hey, I'm not saying to oppose Ben Carson is to be a racist, but there's certainly a racist element to this unreasonable hatred of Ben Carson.; 9/8/15, 1:15 PM
Virgil Hilts said...: Ann, one of your posters (Dan) a week or so ago suggested checking out the blog of Scott Adams (Dilbert) re Trump. Finally, did so and Adams really does have some fascinating arguments about why Trump is doing so well. http://blog.dilbert.com/ I think you would enjoy some of Adams' theories.; 9/8/15, 1:21 PM
Fernandinande said...: Carson doesn't seem to understand Darwinian evolution, of which he seems quite uninformed, so it's hard to say exactly what he doesn't believe:

"And why did evolution divert in so many directions--birds, fish, elephants, apes, humans--if there is some force evolving to the maximum?"

Because there isn't "some force evolving to the maximum".

"Why isn't everything a human--a superior human? Darwin specifically stated that his theory hung on the discovery of intermediate forms, and was sure that we would find them. More than a hundred years later we still haven't found them. Even the earliest fossils don't show such intermediates."

100% false.

Ron Winkleheimer said...
Most people don't give a crap about anybodies opinion on evolution, and a surprising number of people don't actually believe in it.
http://www.livescience.com/42251-politics-evolution-belief.html

Says: "Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe in evolution..."

But not Darwinian evolution; it's more like one third or one fifth.; 9/8/15, 1:25 PM
MayBee said...: Here's the thing about Carson and evolution, though.

People are supposedly afraid that a president who doesn't positively discuss evolution will make our children a bunch of scientific illiterates.
But Carson himself is a medical genius. So obviously, whatever he believes, it isn't that people shouldn't received a sound biology, organic chemistry, math, and physics education.

So they are stupid to be afraid.; 9/8/15, 1:32 PM
Fernandinande said...: MayBee said...
Carson: “It would have been extremely courteous if they had asked me whether it was true that I said people who are evolutionist are unethical, which I never did.

I think he's lying:

http://archives.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
"Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning. You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific thought. You can be like Lucifer, who said, 'I will make myself like the Most High.'"

Which again shows that he doesn't understand evolution, and especially not sociobiology.; 9/8/15, 1:36 PM
MayBee said...: Frenandinande- I think he would say that you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, but many evolutionists do,

But that's up to him. I'm not here to defend his thinking. I'm here to say, so what?; 9/8/15, 1:39 PM
damikesc said...: Ferdinande, perhaps you aren't able to grasp what he is saying?; 9/8/15, 2:40 PM
cubanbob said...: A lot of criticism of Carson on the grounds of evolution and very little of it if any that makes any sense. What is evolution if not simply adaptation to the surrounding environment and successfully reproducing in as large a number that is sustainable in the current conditions? There is nothing truly random about it at all. All possible adaptations not only have to work in order to continue (or at least not cause sufficient harm) but can only occur in concert with the laws of nature so the randomness is within parameters hence not so random. A point lost on the AGW proponents and their Scientific Marxist economic solutions is that the very technology they are so willing to dismantle is the very same technology that currently allows a species that without any of its technology would limited at best to a few million of it's kind instead of the seven billion who currently live. So lets get rid of most fossil fuel depended technology and let nature takes its course when six out of every seven people in the world slowly die of hunger and the rest live fairly miserable and uncomfortably short lives. Lets save the planet for the most successfully evolved multicellular creatures, insects.

Considering Darwin's views of Black Africans, I wonder what he would make of Carson? In any event, a president's views on evolution are trivial with respects to governance. A president's views on the pseudo-science of AGW are of major economic and policy importance.; 9/8/15, 2:40 PM
jimbino said...: Climate change is irrelevant when you consider that each generation can put an end to the imagined suffering simply by not breeding. All other solutions to the imagined problem involve punishing and taxing living people, some of whom have already made their contribution to resolution of the imagined problem by not having bred.; 9/8/15, 2:41 PM
Sigivald said...: But climate change is irrelevant.

If they really thought it was relevant they'd be pushing for effect alleviation, not "carbon trading" and "emissions caps" that won't even significantly slow it down, according to their own models.

"I'll believe it's a crisis when they treat it like a crisis" continues to be an excellent heuristic.; 9/8/15, 2:56 PM
Larry J said...: The Drill SGT said...
I like Carson. His story is wonderful. Would he be my choice for POTUS? No, I think we have learned that it's not an OJT position. Would I love to see him as a VP? sure.

The US presidency is the ultimate OJT position. With the possible exception of a VP, no one in the country has the full set of experiences to immediately step into the Oval Office and run things from the first day. Governors have executive and political experience but little/no foreign policy and military experience. Business leaders have executive experience and perhaps experience dealing with (bribing*) politicians and foreign leaders but usually no military experience. Military leaders have demonstrated leadership, they know the military, they know quite a bit about politics**, but they still aren't immediately prepared for the big chair. Dr. Carson's executive experience is apparently limited to heading a major surgical unit at Johns Hopkins hospital. He has no military or foreign policy experience. He is a very intelligent man with a sterling reputation which the political class will do everything possible to destroy. He is everything they aren't. I do respect the man a great deal and would vote for him if given the opportunity. We've been electing one member of the Ivy League political class after another and things keep getting worse. Perhaps it's time to quit doing the foolish thing and expecting a different outcome.

*The single investment any business leader can make with the highest ROI is to bribe politicians with campaign contributions. A donation of thousands of dollars can easily get you a contract worth tens of millions.

**Generals and Admirals are political animals. You don't get flag rank without being approved by Congress and that means playing the political game.; 9/8/15, 2:59 PM
Achilles said...: Desperation. This is what DC parasites are starting to feel. The rest of the country not only figured out we don't need them, people are starting to realize we would be far better off without them.

And if Black people figure that out which it seems some are, it can only go up from here.; 9/8/15, 4:38 PM
Michael K said...: "Says: "Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe in evolution..."

But not Darwinian evolution; it's more like one third or one fifth."

There is such misunderstanding of evolution that it probably is not worthwhile talking about it. I got into it over at Ricochet a year ago and finally quit that group. Heart surgeons rely on evolution. Neurosurgeons not as much. The total potential of stem cells may change that as we learn how to heal spinal cord injuries but the practical effects are still a ways away.

Most internal medicine now is genetic and I have a hard time understanding it myself. It isn't really evolution and I think"Intelligent Design" can reconcile most people who have trouble with evolution, one way or another. The real fanatics on both sides will never be reconciled.; 9/8/15, 5:17 PM
Big Mike said...: Clearly the lefties need to get over their inherent racism and pay attention to Clarence Thomas on the law, Thomas Sowell on economics, and Ben Carson on everything else except evolution.; 9/8/15, 5:22 PM
Saint Croix said...: Vox has a good article comparing Carson to Trump. I love this bit:

I was asked by an NPR reporter once, why don’t I talk about race that often. I said it’s because I’m a neurosurgeon. And she thought that was a strange response. I said, you see, when I take someone to the operating room, I’m actually operating on the thing that makes them who they are. The skin doesn’t make them who they are. The hair doesn’t make them who they are.

And it’s time for us to move beyond that...; 9/8/15, 5:37 PM
DavidD said...: My own theory is that by the time people had become conditioned by lack of rigor to accept that "evolution" means whatever its proponents want it to mean in any given context, barriers that would normally have kept people from blindly accepting AGW claims had long since crumbled into dust.; 9/8/15, 9:16 PM
Rfhirsch said...: " he is a man of science who does not believe in evolution " is nonsense. NO scientist "believes" in evolution. That is totally against the scientific way of thinking. Scientists who need to know about evolutionary biology understand and accept its principles. But they know they new knowledge can change these principles, which means that "believing" in them is wrong. Dr Carson has used a lot of evolutionary biology in his career and understands the principles, but would not think of saying he "believes" in them, since that would be speaking against the science.

Indeed, very little ("none" may be the right word) of Darwin's theory still is considered valid by biologists, and much turned out to be totally wrong. Most of the people who write about "evolution", like the author of the New York blog post, are talking about their ideology and not about science.; 9/9/15, 10:09 PM