News Anchor Weighs in on Finding an "Intellectual" President

Chris Matthews, MSNBC anchor newsman, is no stranger to making bigoted statements. One only need hearken back to his “tingle up my leg” comment about his reaction to candidate Obama to realize that. The latest proof of Matthew’s religious and political myopia can be found in an exchange between the host and Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus.

Rather than tackle weighty subjects like the economy, unemployment, or immigration, Matthews raised the idea that what we should fear most as voters is Republican candidates that question climate change and evolution.

Aren’t you worried, though, that in a world where we have to compete with science, in science and technology with Chinese and Indian young geniuses, and some of them move here, and some that are still over in their countries around the world, we’re competing in a world of science and technology to be a country that might be led by someone who doesn’t believe in evolution? Who doesn’t believe in climate change? Who doesn’t believe in the scientific community of his own country, the National Academy of Science, for example, on climate change? Wouldn’t that be kind of scary to have somebody who is so anti-intellectual as president?

Matthews is representative of people so married to the theory of evolution that they hang every evidence of intelligent thinking on it. Though they call it science, someone as unscientific and biased as Matthews blindly adheres to as devoutly as a Muslim suicide bomber believes in Islam.

Most, like Matthews, aren’t willing to leave issues like climate change and evolution as subjects up for debate and discussion. Instead, they imply that anyone who does not embrace such “truths” is unintelligent and ignorant. Evolutionists’ extreme blind prejudice does not allow them to believe that anyone who believes in creation could have any kind of credibility or intelligence.

Ironically, many of the intellectuals Chris Matthews admires are some of the most closed to the free exploration of truth. Even those who admit their scientific bigotry are committed to follow it wherever it leads. Consider these words of famed Harvard geneticist Dr. Richard Lewontin:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Perhaps Matthew should worry a little more about non-scientists like Al Gore that set themselves up as high priests of pseudo science. And while he’s at it, Chris Matthews would do us all a service by educating himself on the underlying belief systems that drive many of the scientists and intellectuals in China and India. Until China’s official policy does not preclude a couple from having more than one child and India ceases to tolerate a supposedly ended but enduring caste system, I for one refuse to see them as examples of free thought.

Considering Chris Matthews’ track record of making stupid statements, maybe it shouldn’t bother any right-thinking conservative when the news host opens his mouth. He is, after all, the same man who on national televisions placed the Panama Canal in Egypt, called West Point enemy territory, and made an on-air pass at CNBC’s Erin Burnett. It isn’t the judgment of Presidential candidates he needs to be questioning.