Ranger Rick gets it yltcaxe sdrawkcab

You know you're in trouble when a major political debate produces a Galileo/heliocentrism analogy that seems even dumber than most of Ranger Rick's statements on the subject of global warming  - and that's saying a lot. 

I look forward to his characteristic doubling down on Teh Biig Stoopid, of course.

The rest of the candidates from Bizarro World on "ecneics"

Josh Rosenau on the nature of other statements made in that same debate, John Huntsman excepted:

Far more important is that evolution is a shibboleth for a candidate's general attitude towards evidence and ideology.  The only basis for rejecting evolution is religious (and political) ideology, and it's worth knowing whether a candidate is willing to toss out science and scientific testing for the sake of ideology.  No question that it's important to consider a candidate's values, but people who don't value evidence or expertise should not be in charge of important decisions.  I have no trouble drawing a line between George W. Bush's off-handed rejection of the evidence supporting evolution – and the expertise of scientists who tried to explain that evidence to him – and his dismissal of expert testimony and extensive evidence that Iraq did not, in 2003, possess WMDs or active WMD programs.  Indeed, name any other policy failure of the Bush years, and a similar prioritizing of ideology over evidence becomes clear.

Inwardly (or outwardly) wincing, yet? I know I am.