And the last sentence of the article succinctly sums it up.
It's pretty common in most religions to dismiss "facts" in favor of not-facts/faith/fantasy or whatever you want to call it.
Yes, it's called science illiteracy, regardless of whether you use quotes around "facts" or not. People will dismiss scientific fact that contradicts their belief because they don't understand the science, but they certainly understand their belief.
But just because people apply these standards within the realm of their religious beliefs doesn't mean they apply the same standards to prefer "not-fact" to fact in making business or political decisions that are totally unrelated to their religious practices.
Well, it doesn't
necessarily mean that, but it often does. Regardless of the realm, beliefs are beliefs and facts are facts, and when you dismiss facts because they don't corroborate your beliefs, your ability to think logically, rationally and critically gets called into serious question.
Most chief executives have the ability to compartmentalize. For example if Carson declared the Holocaust was a myth despite all known facts to the contrary, then we would have reason to question his ability to make logical and rational decisions.
What's the difference between the myth of the Holocaust and the myth of Evolution? Does the dismissal of one set of facts get a pass because the belief is rooted in religion, where dismissing the other set of facts does not because they are rooted in living human memory? Just because one's strongly held beliefs are in the context of religion doesn't make the beliefs more valid than strongly held beliefs in other contexts. When facts contradict a belief, the only logical, rational, intelligent, sane thing you can do is set aside or alter the belief so that it fits with reality. Religions have been doing that very thing for centuries, actually. Science makes a discovery, religion dismisses it, it later becomes scientific fact, dogma gets altered. Some people can't handle it.
I'll also agree should he announce that as POTUS he would be MIA on Saturdays due to his religious requirements, the public in general would reject him as a serious candidate.
And if they didn't initially, the media would certainly ensure it. There are a lot of jobs you can have as a Seventh Day Adventist, but I'm not sure POTUS is one of them. The only exception to performing work on the Sabbath is work directly related to saving lives (doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc.), since Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath. But no cleaning up or doing paperwork or anything else. Still, he could limit his golf outings to Saturdays and still perform in a 6 day week. It's the Young-Earth Creationism in the face of facts that is more problematic, as even mainstream Christianity views that as the radical fringe.
We still don't know much about Dr. Carson, and I haven't followed every single word he's spoken or written about his political positions or where he stands on critical current issues. If there are any examples in these areas of him favoring "non-fact" over fact in his political decision-making processes, let's see them.
That's a pretty narrow path to walk considering he's never held political office and thus we have no resume of his political decision-making process. We know many of his political positions, but the decision-making process that got his there remains a mystery subject only to to speculation. However, as to be expected from anyone with strong beliefs, you can certainly see the influence of his religion on some of his decisions.
However, Seventh Dayers don't drink or smoke and he doesn't think anyone else should, either. He broached the idea of a federal law requiring a 0.00% BAC in order to drive, but later amended it to 0.02% to account for false positives. Truck drivers are allowed 0.04%. He says it will reduce drunk driving because anything higher you are impaired, but 0.00 has long been the position of Seventh Day Adventists. The science says you are unimpaired at 0.6, but his religion says otherwise.
He flatly states that America, just like Rome, will fall because of the immoral behavior of its citizens, despite the fact that Rome fell because of Christianity, lead poisoning, monetary troubles, a military stretched too thin, and incompetence by politicians.
He believes war to defend religion is ethical, just and holy (unless your religion is Islam). Ironically, he thinks all radical elements of all religions should be confronted with brute force (by "all" I'm assuming he exempts the radical Seventh Day Adventists).
He thinks deporting illegal aliens is immoral, that they should be welcomed with Guest Worker status, because that's the moral thing to do.
He wants to end the "war on God."
He will not run for president, however, "God may call me" to do so.
