A Presidential Debate on Science?

Despite your warm reassurance in the first paragraph of today's blog, Ned, we still have a little less than nine months more of campaigning before election day. I'm sure we'll have plenty more political bombast to confront before that time, so please forgive me if I stay in my shelter a while longer.

I agree that a debate doesn't really seem to be the proper vehicle for the candidates to discuss "the scientific issues confronting society and of the policies he or she would implement in response to new scientific information." I would think that the format would lend itself more to sensational sound bites without giving the candidates enough time to state their positions and ideas for the future. But some discussion must take place, and if that discussion is in the form of a debate, so be it.

I think it's great! For too long science has taken a back-seat to some issues that the government shouldn't even be in. I think a constitutional Prez. with a scientific outlook on things, instead of a politically motivated sense of reality, could do wonders for the country, and for scientific understanding. Perhaps with a guy or gal like this, we could thwart some of those doom predictions.

I think putting science issues more front and center is a great idea, but I'm not sure a separate debate is the best way to do it. I would think it would just move all potential science questions off into one isolated debate that everyone will feel safe to ignore. Better to bring science issues into the main debates, but I don't know how you can force that to happen - nothing happens without the consent of the candidates anyway.

Science should not be debated by politicians.

Truth and politics are mutually exclusive concepts.

Not a bad idea, but PLEASE keep Al Gore out of it!

A debate would be a great idea. I would love to see Huckabee "explain" that the earth is 6000 years old. We need to realize, however, that a president who even knows what the periodic table IS would be an improvement over the dunce currently in the White House.

How can you squawk about Al Gore. At least he has brought this topic to the forefront. Only a year or so ago, most republicans were calling the whole concept of global warming a myth. At least now they are tossing around the idea that we may well have some influence over the environment. It's a start.

rmberryman,

I agree. Al Gore is primarily interested in profiting from the Green Movement.

I think bringing science policy into the debate would be fantastic. Although it couldn't be about scientific theory. It could demonstrate appreciation and understanding of scientific method, medical research, engineering, and mathematics as a consideration in leading the United States forward.

One of our greatest rivals in the world, China, is lead by a government of Engineers. The USA is lead by government of Lawyers.

I don't think a debate is either advisable or necessary. I think the most important thing is that the President acknowledges that there is science and that it's quantifiable. A Luddite in the White House will not and has not done this country any good at all. I don't understand how any person can use a computer or fly to some destination or use a phone and deny that science is here to stay. Such people need to be locked away someplace secure, because they present a danger to the future of this nation.

More information comparing what the candidates have said about science issues has been collected by AAAS and a blog by Physics Today

I sounds like a great idea. But you may find out they have no clue of the issues or the science behind them. Keep in mined. Politicians are not use to dazzling the public with there brilliance. They are use to baffling them with there bull-**** .

You should have them quizzed first to see how much they know about the science issues. Then let the Debate on it.

All I can think of is that song from Weird Al Yankovic “I lost on Jeoparody” when I think of them being quizzed. :)

The big question is can you get them there.

It would be interesting to see how much each of the candidates really knows about Science. The problem is that so much of Science is still being debated by scientists themselves. However, turning to the use of clean energy sources, I believe is an absolute must (do) with zero emissions. The only "emission" should be a small amount of heat and even that should be close to zero. It is the scientist's job of convincing the President and the public to act and the responsibility for what the President does lies on the public and public opinion to encourage the congress and the president to do the right things.

I forgot to use the word FREE. We should be using clean and FREE energy sources and the public needs to make this change happen. So not only should it be zero emissions, it should cost nothing too.

Evolutionary Psychologists will save the world. Read some Buss, Ridley, Pinker, Diamond. You'll be changed forever.

Andy -
I agree completely but not just to the nation but to all of humanity.

jock59801 -
thanks for the links.

No Evolutionist will ever save the world. That is blasphemy. Anyone that believes in Evolution does so because they do not want to believe that they will have to answer to God for what they do. Evolution is the cause of crime not the prevention of it. Our only "Savior" is God Himself who made us. If you want to talk Science, that is your Science right there. Things do not make themselves. They need a Creator, a Redeemer and a Savior. That is the kind of "Science" questions that we should be asking.

How do you explain our origin since it is impossible for us to pop into existence without an external perfect force and intelligent design?

People just don't have a clue when it comes down to real Science (with the exception of evangelicals like Huckabee).

I think this is a great idea. Thank goodness Hucklebee has no chance of being elected - he's the only one without a clue.

cturple, if you want to say something, you can't just say something without saying why you are saying it. You have to explain why you believe it to be so. It means nothing without a basis. Where is your ("scientific") basis for saying what you do? Show me how all life can pop into existence without design. You can't so what you say means nothing. It has as much substance as thin air without gas. If you want to talk Science, you need to start from "the beginning". You need to begin with the origin of life. You need to go from having nothing to having something without any external interference. You can’t do that so you can’t say anything... unless you agree there is a Creator.

Daleri, there was a creator for the human species. Two of them actually. And no, it wasn't Jesus. You see, it all started when two monkeys fell in love. They had this grand ceremony, where the High Priest of the Banana presided. Then, because they were animals, they consumated the union right there in front of all the other monkeys. A few months later, a child was born. Her name was Eve. She was one of the precursors to Humans. She mated with another monkey that looked similiar, and had more monkey babies that made more human like monkey babies. And over time, through the breeding of monkeys, humans came into existance a few hundred thousand years ago.

My science for this is the science of Palentology(sorry for the spelling) and evolutionary science. I'm sorry but Creationism and it's so-called "Intellegent Design" theories are full of holes. Matter of fact, the only reasonable evidence that I've ever come across is that ID people seem to scream "EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY!!!!" Which is the only credible argument you've got. Heck, even ID itself is JUST A THEORY. Dinosaurs never walked with people, they flew, but never walked. This is supported by the hundred or so years of palentology that has NEVER found a human bone in the same geologic strata as any dinosaur, minus birds, which are widely accepted as direct descendants of dinosaurs.

As for carbon dating, yes it has flaws, but so does your watch. We're human, far from perfect. And if you think God had something to do with creating us and all the creatures on the planet, He's not perfect either. There's plenty of animals that aren't here. That were wiped out because they either didn't do well, couldn't adapt, got blown up by volcanos and meteorite impact, etc. And if you take the bible literally, God cloned Eve from Adam. Don't know how he made her a female, unless he made Eve a male and gave him some strange reproductive organs that evolved into the females we know today. But that would be telling that God invented homosexuality, and of course, that's blasphemy as well, even though it is HIGHLY natural.

And just because you believe in evolution does not mean you don't believe in God or that we don't want to have to answer to Him. I believe in evolutionary science because there is plenty of evidence supporting it. I also have faith that God exists. I don't think that our current universe could have just popped into existance on it's own. It needed something. I just think God created this universe as some sort of reality T.V. show. And I'm sure He thinks our bickering is quite funny.

Now, lets try to play nice. This thread isn't here to discus evolution. It is here for us to discuss the value of having a Presidential Scientific Debate.

Daleri - The origin of life is not going from nothing to something; it is going from something to something a little different. All that takes is energy, natural selection, and a lot of time. We don't know exactly how the origin of life happened so we can't say too much about it, but we can say a lot about how life evolved after it began. And I think it is important that our leaders know a little bit about basic science.

I don't mind if our leaders think that some god or gods intervened in the course of evolution, but I do expect them to understand how science works and what it his shown us. How can they make decisions about science funding, environmental protection, medical ethics, or climate change if they aren't even aware of what we know about these things from scientific research?