An Orlando Sentinel article headlined Sandy Adams dismisses evolution in favor of ‘the Biblical teachings’ seems to me a bit overblown. Adams is running against incumbent U.S. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas in Florida’s 24th District. The reporter latched onto Adams’ attempts to dodge a citizen’s question about the teaching of evolution:
During a campaign telephone town hall meeting last week, Adams appeared to discount the theory of evolution, outlined by Charles Darwin about 150 years ago.
AdvertisementA caller, identified as Keith from Titusville, asked Adams if she believed in evolution. “I’m Christian. What else do you want to know?” she responded, sounding uncomfortable. When asked again, she replied, “I’m Christian. I believe in the biblical terms of how we came about.”
She reiterated that stance in a brief interview on Thursday before her cell phone dropped the call. “I don’t back away from my religion,” she said. “I believe in the biblical teachings.”
And the reporter also notes that Adams had supported the anti-science, anti-evolution bills that were nearly made state law back in 2008. Whereas it is good to know about Adams’ stance on this issue, I don’t think it deserved a whole story focused on it. It’s not like Adams herself was making an issue of it. She just answered a question and tried to quickly move on. I guess this particular race just isn’t all that exciting, and so the reporter had to write a story about something.
And the reporter also notes that Adams had supported the anti-science, anti-evolution bills that were nearly made state law back in 2008.
This is very important information.
Why pick on a reporter who is following up on the key issue driving Florida Citizens for Science?
The problem of right-wing/hyperchristian “stealth” candidates is real, and Sandy Adams seems to fit the description on the Wanted poster. Bravo to any journalist who asks pointed (but fair) questions about significant issues without waiting for opposition candidates to start flinging poo!
Color me confused by the tone of this blog post too. We’re not talking about about someone making stupid remarks about evolution over 10 years ago when they were just a young pundit. This is a former lawmaker that supported anti-evolution legislation 2 years ago. Someone who obviously rejects science in support of religious ideals. Someone who is now in a position to support such legislation again.
Isn’t that exactly what this organization is here to oppose by “Defending sound science”?