The candidates on science

Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:40 PM by Alan Boyle

Science / Comstock / Corbis

The latest roundup of the presidential candidates’ stands (and non-stands) on science-related issues such as stem cells, climate change and energy policy illustrates why a debate focusing on those issues is so needed … and so unlikely to happen. Some hopefuls have been ducking so much you’d think they were out hunting with Dick Cheney. Nevertheless, analysts have come up with bits of data that run counter to the conventional wisdom.

For the most part, the candidates' stands on the issues have to be gleaned from sheafs of policy papers as well as past statements from office-holders and reassurances from advisers. That's how the journal Science put together this week's rundowns for nine top-tier presidential candidates (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson on the Democratic side, as well as Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson for the GOP).

"Although none of the campaigns afforded us direct access to the candidates themselves - a telling indicator of the importance of science in the campaign, perhaps - we've talked to some of their advisers, as well as to colleagues, friends and foes alike, who are familiar with their careers," Jeffrey Marvis, deputy news editor at Science, wrote in the leadoff to the journal's 10-page special report.

Some candidates were more forthcoming than others: Clinton has put the most effort into developing an overarching science policy, highlighted by her Sputnik-anniversary speech in Washington last October. In contrast, Giuliani's campaign "successfully discouraged key advisers from speaking to Science about specific issues," the journal noted. Thompson's aides were said to have declined repeated requests to discuss science and technology issues in detail.

Science isn't the only publication tracking down the candidates' views on science and technology:

Science's chief rival in the publication of peer-reviewed research, the journal Nature, has put together capsule summaries for a dozen hopefuls, adding Democrats Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich as well as Republican Ron Paul.
Popular Mechanics has compiled its own "Geek the Vote 2008" roundup.
LiveScience provides an overview of the political landscape, tied to the Science report.
Space.com, meanwhile, focuses on the candidates' space policies, as does The Space Review.

The usual political spin is that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to call for tighter greenhouse-gas limits, more federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and more government support for basic research. But the analyses provide a more nuanced picture.

Republican McCain, for example, rates among the "most knowledgeable" candidates on the climate change issue, one expert told Science - and McCain turned up the heat on the Bush administration as a result. He's also taking advice from a former Clinton administration officials on energy security, and favors expanded stem cell research (although he draws the line on therapeutic cloning).

Giuliani is also more open to embryonic stem cell research, while Romney has distanced himself from the record he built on stem cells as well as greenhouse-gas limits during the early part of his term as Massachusetts governor. "His two-year honeymoon with the research community ended abruptly in 2005 ... just as Romney's presidential campaign was getting started," Science's Andrew Lawler wrote.

Even Huckabee, who has taken some knocks from the scientific mainstream for rejecting evolutionary theory and opposing embryonic stem-cell research, gets a somewhat softer image. Science summarizes the approach he took as Arkansas' governor thusly: "Take a strong stance, but don't impose your views on others."

Huckabee gets positive marks for his actions on health policy and research, but the environmental record is more mixed. He has said doing more about climate change was part of being "good stewards of this Earth," but has also referred to environmentalists as "wackos."

On the Democratic side, much has been made of Obama's statement that money should be diverted from NASA to help fund his proposed education programs - but on the Space Politics blog, Jeff Foust passes along a campaign clarification aimed at reassuring space advocates. This wouldn't be the first time Obama revised and extended his remarks on science-related issues: The Science report noted that Obama appeared to weave back and forth on the issue of liquefied coal as an energy source.

Biomedical researchers, meanwhile, expressed some reservations about the tactics Edwards used as a trial lawyer in a series of multimillion-dollar medical malpractice suits. "I know people who would never vote for him" because of that baggage, Nobel-winning biochemist Peter Agre told Science.

The main theme of all the roundups, however, is that a scientific perspective has been sorely lacking in the campaign up to this point. Now that the Iowa caucuses are officially kicking off the political season, it's time for that to change.

"Now is the time for the research community to catch the attention of the next president of the United States of America," Nature declares in an editorial this week.

Science's editor-in-chief, Donald Kennedy, notes that this year's presidential canididates aren't shy when it comes to talking about their religious beliefs - and then adds a twist:

"Given this new focus on religious disclosure, what does this U.S. election have to do with science? Everything. The candidates should be asked hard questions about science policy, including questions about how those positions reflect belief. What is your view about stem cell research, and does it relate to a view of the time at which human life begins? Have you examined the scientific evidence regarding the age of Earth? Can the process of organic evolution lead to the production of new species, and how? Are you able to look at data on past climates in search of inferences about the future of climate change? ...

"... We need to know the candidates' qualifications for understanding and judging science, and for speaking intelligently about science and technology to the leaders of other nations in planning our collective global future. I don't need them to describe their faith; that's their business and not mine. But I do care about their scientific knowledge and how it will inform their leadership."

At least two broad-based efforts are trying to shine a light on on science and technology policy: For months, Scientists and Engineers for America has been gearing up to keep track of candidates' positions on key issues, not only on the presidential level but for all federal elective offices. Science Debate 2008's call for a full-bore debate on science and technology is quickly picking up traction, but that gets us back to the basic question: What will it take for the presidential campaigns to focus on scientific perspectives?

Maybe it's just too early for the campaigns to sound so, um, presidential. We're about to begin what's sure to be a bruising primary season, and the candidates are likely to be much more focused on securing their party base - people who generally aren't as concerned about the niceties of nuclear power and nuclear transfer. There'll be time enough to reach out to the geeks in lab coats after the convention. At least that's how I imagine the strategists are thinking.

What do you think? Feel free to pass along your perspective - or your pointers to policy clues - as a comment below.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I agree that evaluation of a candidate's knowledge and understanding of science is a critical way to evaluate that person's ability to govern. However, I want to understand both a candidate's scientific knowledge and religious position because both tell me important things about that person's thinking and problem solving skills. For example, a person who thinks that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that intelligent design is a logical explanation for the Earth's diversity, or who feels that government has nothing better to do than to worry about people's bedroom behaviour is not someone I want to be in a decision making position in our government. To me, these kinds of religiously based stances indicate a persion who is unable to analyze and critically evaluate information, to discriminate between sources of information, or to assess priorities in ways that truly matter -- all characteristics that make them unfit to govern in my book.

E. Anders, Richland WA (Sent Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:23 PM)

Democratic Presidential candidates expounding on their Science/God stance...I cannot wait!

steve smyth (Sent Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:01 PM)

Donald Kennedy's quote "I don't need them to describe their faith; that's their business and not mine" is something that SHOULD be true, and would be true if the majority of people of this country (especially people who vote) weren't so wrapped up in the idea that a belief in a god is so important. A perfect example is the Newsweek poll that was printed in 2007 stating that non-believers were the most mistrusted minority in America.

The risk is that a candidate who brings to the light his or her stance on stem-cell research and why they consider it to be a viable medical field is going to be shot down by the religious as being pro-abortion. This loses votes for that candidate that the gained votes from the well educated on the benefits of stem cell research cannot compensate for.

Unfortunately until a shift in focus is made by the people of this country, science will take a backseat to religion when it comes to politics... such is the democratic process at times.

Shannon M. Singleton, Tempe, AZ (Sent Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:53 PM)

Quite simply, it is beyond belief that in this century, this millennium, candidates for high office can deny the fact of evolution, ignore reams of evidence that global warming is happening, and refuse to look carefully into the full consequences of alternative fuels, even if we do need to pursue them. As a paleontologist, I am appalled at the whole lot of them, and urge those in a position to force candidates to address these issues seriously to do so with vigor.

John Ernissee, Ph.D., Clarion, Pennsylvania (Sent Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:04 PM)

While I feel that money needs to start being directed back towards our educational system, and not away from it.. I do not think NASA is the piggybank from which to draw.

NASA put a man on the Moon, showed us the rings of Saturn, and took us for a stroll around Mars. They have become an inspiration to us all, allowing our imagination of worlds beyond to take flight.

Educators and Leaders are always quoting the phrase "Reach for the Stars!"... So lets keep doing just that.

Jason S, Fort Wayne, IN (Sent Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:05 PM)

I'm a firm believer in the democratic process, but the sad fact is that our politicians are being ruled by an emotional but not very informed "mob." I don't think democracy can produce great leaders until the right to vote is limited to people who know how to think, have some knowledge of the history of democracy and our political process, and a basic knowledge of something like semantics. Voting should be a privilege, not a harped-upon duty, and when I speak of privilege, I by no means intend discrimination by income, sex or race.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never have an enlightened electorate, and that's how we wind up with a power-hungry demagogue like our current sitting president. Just giving everyone the right to vote doesn't solve any problems, but creates a plethora of expected ones. Everyone who wants to vote should have a few basic seminars or lectures covering the subjects needed to vote intelligently, and this "education" should be entirely free and voluntary and highly accessible.

I don't anticipate seeing such changes in my lifetime, so I think it's unrealistic to expect political candidates who are hungry for votes to take honest and intelligent positions on matters related to science or religion. Our political leadership, if you can call it that, will always be under the sway of narrow-minded yahoos and impulsive illiterates who never seem to consider "issues" when casting a vote, but are easily manipulated by costly campaigns on highly-charged "value" concerns that are either false, overblown or entirely irrelevant.

The bottom line: don't expect to hear "truth or dare" from professionals in the courting of votes. We'll probably never know the candidates' true feelings about science or religion.

Ron Doss, Alamogordo, NM (Sent Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:19 PM)

It's time we as a nation remembered that governments have to act on matters here on Earth, based on logical, demonstrable principles measured by scientific methods. That is the public job of every person elected to office and serving as an employee on the public payroll. Each of those individuals has a private right to believe as he or she wishes about the meta-physical, after hours.
I say: render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's -- the physical world; and render unto God that which is God's -- the spiritual world.
When I was a kid it didn't seem like a big dilemma for most public discourse. Anyone who rejected science for Creationism would have seemed a lot more "wacko" than an environmentalist (think John Muir, Thoreau,Thomas Jefferson, even Teddy Roosevelt). Science was supposed to lift us above the dark ages of religious superstition.
I have strong spiritual beliefs but I'm not about to claim I'm more right than the next person, who believes something completetly different--which neither of us can prove while we're alive. Take 3 Christians of different demoninations and you'll get 3 different versions of the "absolute truth." But, I think you can get 3 particle physicists to agree on DATA THEY'VE OBSERVED, even if they draw slightly different conclusions about it.
We need leaders NOW who can act for the real highest good of humanity and the planet by talking with world leaders of all faiths in the non-denominational language of science. We will never all agree on behavioral issues concerning human biology but I think we can come to consensus about non-human biology, ecology and Earth science.

I'm pretty sure God would approve, no matter what you call him or her...or them.

Sara Johnston, Lynden, WA (Sent Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:27 PM)

I live next door, in BC, Canada. Whatever happend in the US also affects Canada. I am afraid that if a man believes in something so patendly false as the Mormon religion, that man will believe any nonsense. And I would find it scary to see you elect him as president. This is a technological age, and your president must very knowledgeable about science and technology.

Mr. C.B. Villeneuve (Sent Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:56 PM)

If you want to lead the most scientifically and technologically advanced country the world has ever known, you'd better be pretty darn well versed in science. Unfortunately, the holders of the scientific knowledge are a minority in this country. Most people in America could care less about science (except when they want a cure for something)and most people vote for the guy who is most like themselves. Consequently, a nation of science illiterates = W. (but I digress)

The real questions candidates should have to answer is not do they understand every aspect of scientific policy, but will they yield their ignorance to the experts when the time comes for the decisions. Or will they arrogantly assume they know better than the men and women who dedicate their lives to science?

I say that if it is right to refer to your generals for war, your ambassadors for diplomacy, then why refer to your priest for technological guidance? That wouldn't be the kind of leadership America deserves!

Mike H. Long Island, NY (Sent Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:57 PM)

It is extremely unlikely,and therefore,sad,but we will not get the unvarnished scientific thinking of any of the presidential candidates. All of them, except the marginal candidates like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, seem incapable of sharing a thought that has not been vetted by their key advisors. When Mike Huckabee said that he did not believe in evolution it seemed to me that he was making an appeal to the evangelical crowd. The same can be said of Hilary Clintons' stance on environmental issues. I don't sense a committment to anything by any of these people save getting elected.

So, you scientists out there: Don't get your hopes too high. If the political winds change on any issue, each of these folks will drop that issue so fast that you'll wonder how you could have ever believed they actually supported it.

Harold Jackson, Spokane, Washington (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 12:58 AM)

Let's be honest and say that you rarely find an intelligent person who is religious. People who wish to tell others how to live should stick to preaching and leave the rest of us alone. I have to echo the sentiments above that a person who thinks the Earth to be 4400 years old (according to Bishop Usher) is ignorant and unfit for public service of any kind.

Tom Goldkuhle, Albuquerque NM (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 7:22 AM)

Embryonic stem cell reaserch is not banned and HAS been going on for just as long as adult stem cell reaserch with NO advancements coming from it! All the advances have been made through adult stem cells. The reason they so badly want tax money is that private venture, which has funded most stem cell reaserch, stopped investing in embryonic research because it has not panned out.

As far as the faith of a leader it has more to do with morality then the actual practice of religion, a common thread of understanding if you will. To put your faith in science is to put faith in yourself, whereas religion is to understand there are things greater then self, the idea of selflessness is part of every religion and likely why people are less likely to trust those with no religious belief.

To assume that highly educated people are too smart to put religion ahead of the list in picking a candidate is just silly. When it comes to our origins the scientific attempts to explain take just as much faith as religion. I asked a prof once where the matter and energy came from that caused the "big bang"? After hearing about condensed dark matter etc... I asked again where did it come from? Clearly frustrated he said look around you matter and energy just ARE! I smiled and said "ok God JUST IS". either way science or religon you take a "leap of faith" when you get to the end because we cannot fully understand either. we've seen the good and bad that has come from the mind of man in the name of science and religion I think most people are less afraid of religion then science.

mn (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 7:45 AM)

The United States is fighting a war in the middle East with religious extremists. They happen to be Muslims, but the danger is equally great from fundamentalists of all religions.

Mike Huckabee isn't running for President. He wants to be the Christian Ayatollah. He already has said he wants schools to teach Creationism as science. He wants to impose his religious views of when life begins on medical practice. What else?

Will he require schools teach that pi is precisely three? (1st Kings 7:23).

would Huckabee shut down NASA for wasting taxpayer's money determining the age of the universe? NASA says the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Shouldn't they have simply read the Bible, added up the begats and come up with an age for the universe of slightly more than 6000 years?

Would Huckabee shut science down as heresy? Physics, geology, paleontology, archaeology, biology and even medicine rely on evolutionary reasoning. If viruses don't evolve, why are we worried about bird-flu?

Will he execute Jews for Jesus, or anyone else who changes their religion? The Bible and the Koran both agree that the punishment for apostasy is death. (Deuteronomy 13:6-9, Deuteronomy 17:3-5)

The Biblical punishment for failing to honor your father ands mother is death. (Matthew 15:4)

Frank, Wilmington DE (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 9:12 AM)

Alan,
If I announce my candidacy via CosmicLog, will you hold the debate right here?
If so, my stance is quite clear on Climate/Energy...as shown by clicking my name below.
RE Stem Cell research...I'll hold off commenting until there's some further proof of beneficial uses...beyond skin creme...uses important enough to humanity that bearing up to all the God/Science stuff becomes essential...otherwise...it's just the same as Ecobabbleism...lotsa Folks educated way beyond their intelligence...with way too muckin' futch time on their hands...blatherin' away about whatever crosses their minds...
Freedom's pretty nice...don'tcha think?
Oh, yeah...I'm an Independent...write in...
Welcome to the Frontier...Frontier USA...Forge Ahead!

Fadda Eart (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 9:53 AM)

The current obsession with religion in politics is directly related to fundamentalist Christians and their undue influence in the Bush Administration and the Republican/Conservative communities. Conservative pundits like Bill O'Reilly constantly reinforce the concept that there is this fictitious war being waged by an atheistic, secular commmunity which seeks to destroy Americans' right to believe in God and his influence on our country's history.

The basic fact of faith is that it either exists or it doesn't in an individual. That is a personal choice. The problem occurs when those who do profess a faith then foist their beliefs on others and allow their belief to become paramount over everything, including public opinion, science & technology, logic, reason and plain old common sense. The ardent supporters of the Bush Administration exhibit this unquestioning faith in spite of obvious evidence and facts which should cause them to rethink their support.

The mistrust of the 'godless minority' had more relevance during the Cold War, when we tried to draw distinctions between ourselves and the Communist nations. Today, I think people are being manipulated based on this concept that one's faith must inform them on every issue and decision in their lives. Those who adhere to this approach become sheep-like and can be led by those purporting to know better what Jesus would do in every situation and on every issue.

Gerry McAuley, New York, NY (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 10:04 AM)

Shannon from Tempe:

What's so wrong with exposing the ethical concerns with scientific studies and theories?

Philip, New York (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 11:25 AM)

E. Anders from Richland unfortunately demonstrates a lack of insight into both politics and science. It really is the government's business what goes on in our bedrooms - child-molestation, rape, and (more controversially) bestiality are widely considered to be very wrong things to do, and any candidate who said they were all fine would rightly find himself out of office. I know he raised the point in regard to homosexual practice, and that his point was that whatever takes place between two consenting adults should not be interfered with by the state. But this has more to do with cultural questions (such as whether the social changes which have taken place since the 19th century are for the better, or not) rather than any sort of scientific concern. Actually, it's a scientific fact that unprotected homosexual acts are many times more likely to be a cause of infection of STDs than regular sex, because of the fragility of the wall of the back passage when compared with the tough lining of the vagina - whether a government should intervene to minimise this risk may stem from your concern about a 'nanny state', but hey, since when should science form any part in government policy-making.

With regard to science - scientific dissent has always been the great strength of science rather than its weakness. The existence of viable, credible alternatives to evolution over a long period of time should excite scientists because it has stimulated far more excitement, interest, and funding for research into human origins than we would otherwise see. Science often progresses and our knowledge of the universe increases when scientific revolutions take place - William Harvey, Copernicus, Louis Pasteur, these are all people who were derided in their time for daring to dissent from the orthodoxy of their day, just as ID theorists and creationists are today - historically speaking, the evidence fitted the orthodox theories pretty well, so most experts incorrectly assumed that anything which disagreed with the orthodoxy must contradict the evidence - whereas, in fact, new scientific discoveries were better understood in terms of the more radical, less generally-accepted theories. If, like these revolutionary pioneers of towering intellect, Copernicus, Harvey and Pasteur, a presidential candidate stands out from the crowd and has the courage to stand up for what he sees to be correct, rather than going along with the majority, we should carefully and rationally assess what they have to say instead of dismissing them out of hand.

Andrew Puckering, Leeds, UK (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 12:06 PM)

Every day I thank the Almighty that we live in a REPUBLIC and not a pure Democracy. But what that means is that we must elect [and have our elected representatives appoint] intelligent, fair and educated people to run the ship of state. Religion and science are issues that will not go away soon, that have not been addressed well by the candidates, that affect us in important ways, and that are poorly understood by the mass of voters. What someone's religion is should not matter; but how a candidate might use his religious beliefs [or lack of] does matter. This country was founded by Christians and was intended to be a Christian nation, despite some interpretations of the Constitution otherwise. Religion was on the minds of the founding fathers, they just wanted religious freedoms--not the establishment of a state religion, as in Catholic Spain or Anglican England. Some people today interpret that as meaning no religion at all, no mention of it, is acceptable. I personally a not a religious person, and I am a scientist [geologist]. The issues of fundamentalism are important, even vital issues today--Christian fundamentalism that attacks knowledge and science and Islamic fundamentalism that attacks the culture of the western world. One group are knowledge terrorists and the other are freedom terrorists. These issues are as important to our nation as the issues of personal freedoms, economies, international affairs or global warming, in my humble opinion. I for one would like to hear the candidate's views on fundamentalism in ite various guises.

Mike Roberts (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 12:37 PM)

Conservative christianity has reached cult-like proportions in the US and now they are seriously considering putting a person into office who can't distinguish between the secular and being in church!

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 12:50 PM)

I'm sure the candidates find it terribly convenient that they can simply say, "I believe in God" and have voters accept it as an answer. The truth is, that phrase tells us practically nothing about their actual positions on anything whatsoever. Being religious is not an automatic indicator of your position on abortion or evolution. Of course they'd prefer not to risk losing part of their voting bloc by stating whether they support fetal stem cell research, but that's the very thing the voters need to know!

Besides, hot-button science topics like stem cells or global warming aren't the only issue here. In the next four years, information is destined to be the top commodity, so I'd really like to know my next president's opinions on net neutrality and Digital Rights Management. Are the candidates even aware they should be considering how to safeguard citizens' personal information from increasing infringements not just by hackers, but by big business? And never mind global warming: with oil hitting $100 per barrel, I'd personally appreciate any informed thoughts they have on alternative energy.

Julia, State College, PA (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 12:56 PM)

Philip, ethical concerns are one thing, religious concerns are another. The problem is that some do not see a distinction and when someone goes against their religious views, regardless of the supporting data, they will not vote for that candidate and that is an issue.

Shannon M. Singleton (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 1:38 PM)

WOW I can hardly beleave much of what i've read here. Demanizing those with faith as wanting to IMPOSE their beleaves is a standard card the left loves to play. The fact is all conservatives want is equality. The constatution basicaly says that government should not promote one religon over another, under the missuse of this we have aloud the destruction of values, it has gone too far. Christians are fed up and simply want the right to say i don't agree. No one wants creation taught in school, what we need is to stop teaching scientific therories as fact. Most christians would be happy with one sentance, "this is a science class so we will discuss scientific theories. There are many cualtural and religous explinations on this subject but as to not promote one over another we will stick to science." That is not asking a lot, one would think, but there are many states and districts that prohibit the mere insinuation that Big bang and evelution are any thing but FACT. Thats the problem, the intalerance of the left! Like wise with other "religous issues" like abortion, stem cells, Gay marriage ect... The majority of christian conservatives do not condone blowing up clinics or gay bars and could realy care less what you do in your bedroom. They want the right to say I don't agree, with out being demanized as homophobic, racist, or what ever other term the left likes to use to scare and polerize people.
Christians have been forced to seperate their religous and secular lives, and have come to except that, for the freedoms of every one to beleave as the wish or do not. It's the hypocracy of the left that is getting people worked up. All referance to christian faith has been removed from schools, yet more and more schools are sued to provide "cultural centers", where muslim students go to observe their caltural customs...(pray). You can't have it both ways! The left not the right is what is deviding America. There are several suits demanding additional time away from work to observe "caltural demands" try to tell your boss you can't work saturday becuase we are observing the command to rest on the seventh day as God said.

mn (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 9:15 PM)

So many people completely misunderstand the Evolution vs Intelligent Design (New name creationism). Science and belief are two different realms. Science is, and must be based on empiricism. If there is no physical evidence to support, then it IS NOT SCIENCE. On the other hand, there is absolutely no amount of science that can either prove or disprove ones beliefs.
The amount of evidence that exists, which supports evolution is absolutely staggering. The most convincing of which, comes not from the fossil record, but from molecular evidence such as; protein sequences, comparitive DNA, and mitochondrial DNA evidence. Scientifically speaking, evolution is a valid theory and should be taught as such.
As a high school science teacher, I go over the different types of knowledge, specifically, belief and science, and how that knowledge is derived. For the vast majority of students they are able to see the difference between the two. Then I tell them that as young adults, it is their prerogative to put as much or as little weight on the science side as they see fit, and encourage them to talk to their parents, pastors etc about the belief side of things. In my class, however, it is my job to teach them science.
Rather than teaching them Intelligent Design as an alternative to scientific theory, I think that schools should offer philosophy classes. This would be a much more appropriate arena, where students could discuss thier beliefs, as well as refine thier thinking and learn the basics about other beliefs as well.
That way the teaching of science and belief can be seperated, and we can let our kids (Who are much brighter than anyone gives them credit for) can make thier own decisions on how much weight to give each type of knowledge.

Thomas J. Blackhurst - Rye, Colorado (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 11:46 PM)

To Mr.Roberts: "The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." -George Washington. Christopher Columbus came here for slaves, and gold. There are many such misconceptions about U.S. history bcause that's what they've always taught us in school. Living here in the Bible belt, the Christian conservative view point is thrust in my face daily. I pass dozens of church billboards which change weekly on my way to work every day, and believe me their positions are loud and clear. Most of the cars have W.W.J.D. bumper stickers, most of the teenagers have bracelets and clothing w/ the same. I work w/ the public and Religion is very often brought into the conversation. Many of the people I know go to Church 2-3 times a week normally, not counting revivals, retreats, summer camps. Where evangelistic, fundamentalist positions are constantly reinforced. The paleantologist who said he was apalled, and someone needed to do something... We are those someones, until the rational thinkers in America get together, and wear our positions on our sleeves so to speak, the ultra-conservative forces will continue to gain strength. They are organized and on the offense, proselytizing at every oppertunity. Until those who disagree do the same, we will continue down the path we are on.

Shelley Chenot, Asher,OK. (Sent Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:53 AM)

mn, yur speling is atroshous....

Th (Sent Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:21 PM)

Evolution is a fact and a theory that is supported by and explains that fact - just as gravitation is both a fact and a body of theory. Evolution is not just good science; it is brilliant science. Creationism is not just wrong; it is idiotic.

The weird thing I notice that the people who are most ignorant of science are the ones who are trying to promote creationism, by downplaying evolution and misrepresenting science.

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:30 PM)

There is no problem with "those with belief" or "those with faith." The problem is with those who have particular beliefs that directly conflict with science. Too often these sorts are willing to utterly misrepresent their own beliefs - and science - in order to make it appear that their cherished myths are supported by science, or are at least as scientific as real scientific ideas.

There reason a person rejects evolution is a comic-book understanding of what science is and how it works. When they deniers get around to saying anything about evolution, it becomes painfully obvious that their "knowledge" of the subject amounts to nothing more than barber-shop gossip.

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:39 PM)

SEA's questionnaire during the election cycle was a very valuable service, yet the fundamentals of ascertaining where candidates stand on science & technology issues remain the same in non-election years. To this aim, SEA continues its goal to inform and educate all scientists and engineers on public policy issues. Join us at http://sharp.sefora.org/wp-login.php?action=register&redirect_to=%2F

MrChemistry, Houston, TX (Sent Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:46 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=545993

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG