I know a lot of successful people who don't know anything about the current state of evolutionary biology. I'm guessing you do too. It's totally superfluous to most occupations.
I don't think a lack of an understanding of biology is the problem; the problem is a disregard for empirical evidence.
Whenever the evolution vs. creationism debate comes up in the context of a presidential election, some people argue that it doesn't matter whether the POTUS understands biology. But as I wrote, a lack of an understanding of biology isn't the problem; the problem is a disregard for empirical evidence. If a presidential candidate has no regard for empirical evidence in the context of biology, they likely have no regard for empirical evidence in the context of other subjects, including important subjects such as health economics. That's the problem.
So while you're correct that a person can lack an understanding of biology and still be successful, a successful person who has little regard for empirical evidence is a threat to civilization.
subsection1h|12 years ago
Whenever the evolution vs. creationism debate comes up in the context of a presidential election, some people argue that it doesn't matter whether the POTUS understands biology. But as I wrote, a lack of an understanding of biology isn't the problem; the problem is a disregard for empirical evidence. If a presidential candidate has no regard for empirical evidence in the context of biology, they likely have no regard for empirical evidence in the context of other subjects, including important subjects such as health economics. That's the problem.
So while you're correct that a person can lack an understanding of biology and still be successful, a successful person who has little regard for empirical evidence is a threat to civilization.
jswinghammer|12 years ago