ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Candidates speak out on science

Posted: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:30 PM by Alan Boyle


AP
Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama have responded to a
14-question presidential campaign quiz on science and technology issues.

GOP presidential candidate John McCain has joined Democrat Barack Obama in providing answers to 14 questions on science and technology. On two of the campaign's biggest science issues - climate change and stem cell research - the rivals aren't all that far apart, at least when you look at the big picture.

The questions were posed by Science Debate 2008, which has been working to raise the visibility of sci-tech issues in the campaign for nine months. The grass-roots group couldn't get the candidates together for a debate during the presidential primary season, but today's answers from McCain have finally turned the project into a two-party system. (Obama provided his answers to the 14-question quiz two weeks ago.)

"Most of America's major unsolved challenges revolve around these 14 questions," Science Debate 2008's chief executive officer, Minnesota screenwriter Shawn Otto, said today in a statement laying out McCain's answers. "To move America forward, the next president needs a substantive plan for tackling them going in, and voters deserve to know what that plan is."

Both candidates declare that technological innovation will be key for America's future, but each puts his party's particular political spin on proposals for promoting that innovation. Obama stresses the need for increased funding for basic research and education. McCain says he would provide "broad pools of capital, low taxes and incentives for research in America." He'd also streamline regulations and "eliminate wasteful earmarks in order to allocate funds for science and technology investments."

Climate change and energy
McCain's biggest departures from the traditional GOP spin come when he's talking about climate change and stem cells. For example, the party's conventional wisdom calls for a go-slow approach to doing something about greenhouse-gas emissions, but McCain has always bucked the trend.

Like Obama, McCain calls for a cap-and-trade system to encourage a departure from the carbon-based energy economy, with a reduction of carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Obama would like to see further reductions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 - McCain calls for a 60 percent reduction by that time. (Actually, it'll be up to successors in the White House to hit any of those goals.)

Both candidates give a nod to alternative energy sources (including nuclear power) as well as higher energy efficiency and cleaner-burning coal. McCain mentions specific proposals such as a tax credit of up to $5,000 for zero-emission cars and his plan for a $300 million prize program for better batteries. Obama serves up a smorgasbord of proposals in a $150 billion, 10-year R&D program.

Stem cell research
Embryonic stem cell research is another area where McCain has parted ways with the Bush administration in the past. Like Obama, McCain supported the expansion of federal funding in that area - even though President Bush vetoed the measure.

Some political observers wondered whether McCain would change his tune now that he's the GOP standard-bearer. His answer to ScienceDebate 2008's question indicates that the tune is still the same, but the volume has been turned down.

"While I support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, I believe clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress," McCain says. "Moreover, I believe that recent scientific breakthroughs raise the hope that one day this debate will be rendered academic."

McCain is referring to last year's dramatic finding that skin cells could be chemically converted into cells that appear to have the stemlike ability to transform themselves into a variety of tissue types. That research raised hopes that embryonic cells may not be necessary to create patient-specific tissues for transplant or medical testing. However, even the discoverers of the technique say embryonic stem cells will remain the "gold standard" for regenerative medicine - and the moral and ethical debate isn't likely to become academic anytime during the next four years.

Obama promises to ease the current limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research by executive order, while making sure "that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."

... And much, much more
When the answers to the other questions are put side by side, it's clear that each candidate devotes the most attention to his own familiar political territory: For example, Obama provides more specifics on health care. McCain lays out a more detailed agenda for space exploration, including references to commercial spaceflight and efforts to bridge NASA's spaceflight gap. In contrast, Obama's big space pitch focuses on reviving the National Aeronautics and Space Council.

The topics covered in Science Debate 2008's questionnaire range from national security and bioterrorism to water and ocean policy. You'll want to check out the full rundown, as well as other comparisons of the candidates' stands that are sure to emerge in the next seven weeks.

Are any of these issues likely to come up in a real-time, head-to-head debate? That question itself is debatable - but Science Debate 2008's president, Matthew Chapman, is holding out hope.

"Science Debate 2008 and its partners once again extend an invitation to both candidates to attend a televised forum where these vital issues can be discussed in front of a broader audience," Chapman said.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

What about the teaching of creationism?
I would like to see how they plan on doing what they are saying. Most of the time all we hear is what they would like to do but when they get in to office it NEVER gets done.  Just once i would like to see the Beef insted of getting it.
this election needs a third party wacko to spice things up...
any ideas?
why not ex-President Daddy?
he's got a term left.
McCain's insinuation that academic professionals frequently debate moot points is discouraging. Ethical issues are never moot points, as we all have learned. Furthermore, if we want to have the benefits of stem cell therapy any time soon we should focus on embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell therapy will be a long time coming, especially given the staggeringly slow progress in making adult stem cells useful despite sufficient funding for this research. It is fairly clear that most researchers (including most adult stem cell researchers) think embryonic stem cell research is where we will reap the most benefit from our tax dollars.
I would love to hear what Palin has to say on these issues.
Climate change- "Is A MYTH"
Energy - "Chants DRILL BABY DRILL"
Stem Cell Research - "Killing Babies"
Space - To easy she has "only been abroad a few times, to Canada, Mexico & recently to Kuwait" I was unaware that Canada & Mexico were "Abroad".
McCain's stem cell plan is not at all like Obama's. To research better ways of using other types of cells for stem cell research, the nation needs to be able to actually do the research to begin with.

It's tiring being of a scientific community that is being left behind by other nations due to the beliefs of our ruler. What part of "separation of church and state" doesn't our country understand?
TL: Mexico and Canada are 'abroad.' Really. They are outside the US.
I expect there will be many posts here and elsewhere with childish insults and lies by supporters of both sides, they should realize how badly that reflects on them and the candidate they support.

The debate was interesting, it was striking how similar the Obama and McCain proposals are: Both call for more science and technical education, nuclear energy, energy conservation, alternative energy sources, reduction in greenhouse gases, promote electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and support space exploration.

The differences were in minor details and emphasis, Obamas proposals are mainly for individuals and society as a whole, McCains proposals are mainly for business and more tax cuts.

Neither one mentioned hydrogen fueled cars, probably because they are extravagantly expensive (a half million or more!) and inefficient compared to battery electrics. No H2 fueled cars will be for sale for at least 5 years if ever, only a few H2 fueled prototypes are on the road now. On the other hand, there are some EVs and plug-in hybrids available for sale now, and several more models will be arriving within 3 years.

I voted for McCain in 2000, and think he would have been a much better president than Bush jr., but in this election I'm supporting Obama, as he has a better understanding of science and technology, and unlike McCain, Obama will not continue the disasterous economic policies of the Bush administration.
For what it's worth...
As regulars will note, I spend quite a bit of time here at CL.
My interest in The New Space Race first drew me to MSNBC bbs space which, in some way, evolved into CosmicLog ( Hope that's correct, Alan ).
The tone of Science v Religion, experiment with everything v every experiment is evil, creationism v whatever, etc. has rung loudly throughout this entire period of time.
A decade of reading such material leaves me wondering how most of us got here...not here on this planet...here at CL.
Some pretty 'in depth' thought goes into the comments on a regular basis.
It makes little difference which candidate says what right now, because the changes about to burst onto the scene will rapidly erase most of the current issues...for better, or worse.
Maybe we should announce ourselves as a voting block.
We all agree on at least one thing.
It's worth the time to come here for a look at what Alan has to offer...and what we all have to say in response...
Thats' more than most 'interest groups' have to start off with.
Give it a thought.
One of these guys will win...one will lose...so what?
There are people developing GeoEngineering schemes which will have far greater impact on our lives over the upcoming years than anything either of these two will ever dare dream.
Just a thought...
Well said CM. I'm concerned, however, of the influence of Gov. Palin, who seems to have quite anti-science view and approach to the world.
What about the teaching of creationism?

.... I hope you're joking.  Intelligent individuals refused to be brainwashed by these fairy tales and tend to go where the evidence takes them... [...]
fadda eart --

Palin is the wacko...
Steve Smyth,

I've probably been around just as long.  But, I do not comment very often.  I grew up in the days before people "exposed" themselves on Facebook and other places.  So, I cringe even knowing that if MSNBC really wanted to, they probably could find me via my rarely changing IP address.  I'm certainly not Jeff in Atlanta.

I've noticed all the "versus" items you've mentioned and more.  And, when reflecting upon most of those areas now and before the Internet, I seem to detect a disturbing difference.  It used to be that scientific articles and religious articles in the newspaper were separate.  Now, with the Internet, the line is greatly blurred.  

I like your "so what?" remark.  It is so true.  Since past history is usually a pretty good guide, it really does not matter.  Both Democrats and Republicans get us into and extract us from wars.  Both Democrats and Republicans say science and math is important and then immediately turn around and fail to produce anything that proves that point.  We have a Walmart society where our students can get jobs selling electronic gear manufactured in foreign lands.  Much of it is now designed in foreign lands.  Some of it you can't even read the circuit boards unless you are Chinese.

It seemed to be important to beat the Russians in space activities.  I thought it was a mixture of fear and intelligence.  In hindsight it appears that it was simply fear likely built up over the prior decades because of World Wars.

I doubt that a voting block is even possible.  It may not even be useful.  I see no candidate that is anxious to remove 70,000 pages of places to hide deals in the tax code.  I see no candidate that places asteroids on a danger list of concerns.  I see no candidate presenting a plan to eliminate poverty by a creative combination of science, business and finance while making a profit doing so.  I see no candidate saying that he would love to accelerate stem cell research because he would love to leave a legacy of 20 extra years of life for everyone.  I could go on and on.

Unfortunately this historic election is coming down to  money and political moves just like all other elections since I was born.  Each side will see how far they can stretch the truth and fashion the lies so that they look better than the opposition.

Even Alan Boyle is part of the problem rather than the solution.  Alan could start his campaign for the 2012 election today.  Boyle for President!  But the Creationists and other non-scientific folks that just love to be invited to Alan's party would stab him in the back without a second thought.  They simply have nothing better to do than hang around trashing God because they think a bunch of humans a couple thousand years ago wrote a special book.  What a bunch of crap!  We simply have no explanation for why anything exists - that is a far more religious thought than a virgin human having a baby.

Alan should just develop a "pile of crap" widget that he can use to clearly label useless remarks.  I might get a few of them.  But, the religious nuts around here need to be clearly labeled so that children that drop by will clearly know what is science and what is anti-science.

Boyle for President!  Sounds good to me!

How can a man make informed decisions on science when he can't even send an email.  We have had personal computers for 30 years and McCain has refused to take the time to learn how to do something a 5 year old can do. I doubt he will take the time to learn what the real issues are in science.  Palin who thinks God tells her how to think would never allow stem cell research or any other controversial research and she is only a heart beat away from the Presidency. It is just scary that these two would be dictating the future of science and education in this country. Christopher Columbus go home, you might fall off the face of the earth.
"Like Obama, McCain calls for a cap-and-trade system to encourage a departure from the carbon-based energy economy, with a reduction of carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020."

Neither candidate apparently understands the issue enough to realize that it is NOT necessary to reduce carbon emissions to solve our global warming problem. What IS necessary is to recuce carbon emissions from burning FOSSIL fuels. Burning biomass can be global warming neutral.

Read more at

http://alum.mit.edu/ne/whatmatters/200111.index.html
I agree with the person above - what about the teaching of creationism? It needs to stop. There needs to be a separation of religion from public schools. Schools need to be revamped and we need to start doing better in math and science to be globally marketable again.
It is encouraging to see that either administration, if elected,  would not be as anti-science as the Bush administration (with the exception of Palin).

In addition to these questions, it would be interesting to know how they plan to develop the next generation of scientists, since the US has recently started to lag in comparison to other countries in terms of the achievement of our students in science.
I so tired of hearing politicians make campaign statements that they have a "plan". It is Congress that needs to make a "plan" since they are the law makers. The president "enforces the laws." Anyway, all of these "plans" that call for "change" only happen after 20 to 50 years (of studies one can presume). Somebody needs to be bold enough to say (as JFK did) we're going to make changes NOW and do things NOW, that will produce results by the end of a decade (or less). It can be done, and we can choose to do them, "not because they are easy but because they are hard" (AND NECESSARY). Let's start with stem cell research and making the auto industry produce cars (which they can - anybody see "Who Killed the Electric Car?") that can function and function well without the use of gasoline.  
I agree with Richard O'Neil above. And  I think Obama is the biggest dreamer.

Quote: I would like to see how they plan on doing what they are saying. Most of the time all we hear is what they would like to do but when they get in to office it NEVER gets done.  Just once i would like to see the Beef insted of getting it.
As a biology researcher, I think that Obama will be better for the scientific community in a practical sense.  Not because he puts us first, but because he puts the economy first, unlike the current administration or McCain, who place a higher value on war with foreign contries.

Personally, as far as their answers to these questions go, I think both of them are just pandering to the scientific community for votes, and I would just as soon ignore their lip service.  What I look at is the one who is better on domestic issues and the economy.  At least that will aid us and our research as far as availability of funds go.
Aren't both Obama and McCain pretty much voicing the Democratic stances on these issues?  I don't understand McCains campaign, "Vote for me, a Republican, because I disagree with Republicans!"  Even though it isn't really true and he voted with BUsh 90+% of the time and his vice pick is openly anti-science.
Creationism is not a science.
My first visit here and the most intelligent comments I've found. The other sites seem to be filled with perpetuated hate and myths.

The truth is, the candidates are all the same; people faced with challenges they probably don't fully understand and certainly at this point don't know how to correct.  

My wish is that religion and lobby groups could be excluded from the debate and the best scientific and business minds of this great nation could have the opportunity to present real solutions to real problems that face real people every day.

I don't support any candidate who worries more about millionaires more than middle class, wants to send millions of our dollars to "poor" countries half a world away while ignoring the needy here at home, who can't separate church and state in their political decisions or who chose military threats over diplomlacy in foriegn affairs.  OK, so who do I vote for? Looks like I have no choice, but I will vote because I have a 50/50 chance of getting the best candidate.  Also because I'm a veteran and I've (2 years) held public office, so I can't stop caring for this country.  

I wish more people would look for the truth in all the political trash talking we are besieged with daily. As of now it seems to me Obama is more truthful, but will it last?
Watching Mccain responses to the issue of stem cell, and his stand on pro-choice, I am left with concluding that here is a man with no stand of it own on this issue, but just pandering. I was thinking of voting for Mccain, but right now I have seen that he is Bush third term. I am afraid this is the same person who spoke against negative attacks when he was at the receiving end from Bush, but has now become a champion. I regretted voting for him in 2000.
Why not teach evolution and creationism and let people decide for themselves what to believe. One is based on science the other on faith. Since most people understand the need for both in our lives perhaps there is room for both creationism and evolution in our belief system.
separation of church and state? No such thing. adult stem cells, ask the thousands of people who are benefiting from them and absolutely no embryonic help yet. Skin cells work, adult works. Science believes that ESCells will be the gold standard but nothing yet. Why not teach both side by side not just evolution but creationism also. Or are we afraid that maybe just maybe someone might say we need to take another look at the crap we teach our children.
To meet the stated goals of greater scientific and
technical competence Americans' afinity for pseudo-
science, astrology,ufo visitors etc
must be addressed as early possible in the home and the teaching environment.      
I am not sure many of us know what the theory of creationism is all about. There about five different versions of it to ponder over as it relates to possible inclusion in science curricula in the school system. I haven't heard Obama mention his views on this, but Biden, I believe in his acceptance speech, alluded to the fact that the Obama-Biden ticket would be against having it included in school teachings by saying: "Imagine what would happen if we introduced creationism in our school systems? Wow!! (He was actually making a statement about not having it included in comparison to the evolutionary theory. In Judeo-Christian circles it is widely accepted that God created Adam and Eve. It is also widely accepted that we had apian ancestors. Only God fully knows how creation transpired! There are many Biblical questions which man will always have an inability to fathom. As a doctor I feel that there is room for both theories to coexist. Who are we to question what God did and how we all transpired. It was creation as God designed it. One theory asks: "How long is God's day (Genesis?) Another asks: "When did God breath a soul into man?" If prehistoric man was without a soul and God breathed a soul into man (Adam) about 10,000 years ago we can include both an evolutionary theory as well as a creationism theory. The debate continues, I am afraid and God didn't explain aspects of his creationism in terms which are understandable, today, let alone thousands of years ago when the Bible was written.

For those who wish to have a more educated position regarding creationsism and how the theory could coexist with the evolutionary theory when the subject is broached in science classes there is a 15-page discussion about this on the internet at www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_creationism.    
Our country, once the leader in technology is now trailing in most science fields. We felt behind during the last 8 years. Just take a look at CERN's grand opening last week. I believe we need a leader that understands that science, education and technology are investments for the future, and that they rip economic benefits, progress and independence. I believe that Obama is more pro-science and will bring a change to the neglected state our science and technology is currently parked. Baby drill ….just do not cut it.  
Here's a way to deal with faith and science teaching.  We go to school to learn facts and we go to church to learn about faith.  Separation of chuch and state and people can choose for themselves where and how to make their own decisions.
Dr. David J. I believe that creationism should be tough in the churches and science in the schools.

From what I've seen, the Democratic position is to take and take more from us to then turn around and give it back. Obviously, this would require a much larger bureaucracy to properly distribute and oversee all of this 'extra' money being spent. Unemployment would be lowered by having far more federal employees.

McCain's camp seems the more sane. Lower taxes so that private industry can do the research, commericalize the discoveries and hire more people to make, or install the new products that come from innovation.

Obama said that he would raise taxes on business and industry. These are generally considered to be the areas of society that that employ American Citizens. If more companies downsize or collapse as a result, more Americans will become unemployed. Obama said that he would lower taxes for the middle class and raise them for the upper class, yet I cannot find anywhere - even on his shallow web site, just where he would put that line! Are you above or below? Think about it.

[ALAN ADDS: For what it's worth, here's an analysis of the tax proposals for both candidates, based on data from the Tax Policy Center:]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

I'm willing to leave the Scopes Monkey Trial in the past and settle with teaching evolution in the schools. Unless we make creation myths of all faiths a part of public school diversity education, the Book of Genesis belongs in faith-based centers of teaching: not federally funded schools (and against the wishes of our deist forefathers). We are behind much of the developed world in math, language education, and science; and, we need to focus on making the next generation economically viable to keep the nation economically viable.  How about the candidates leave "intelligent design" and creationism to the churches and present a plan for reshaping the face of our agrarian-age education system. "No Child Left Behind" set us back a decade... we need leadership and a plan to get us back on track. We live in a pluralistic society now: the days of opportunistic politicians wrapping themselves in the flag and the Bible are behind us. Praise Be. Let William Jennings Bryan rest in peace (and his fight).
it's so sad that after all the breakthroughs this nation had done in the past, everything has been set aside for a more "righteous way", Teaching in school should be an unbiased thing especially for anything that involves science. Isn't Sunday designed for teachning religion stuff ??!! If for some reason we put someone in office that turns out to be equally or worse than the current admin then we'll have the biggest problem in history, more lagging behind in technology, currency falling to unexpected lows, in other words the falling of a Nation
Sorry, but creationism is not science, it is religion.  Therefore, it does not belong in public schools.  Darwin had no clue how life was created any more than we do, and therefore his  book does not deal with creation.  Read it.  His work does however show how living things change over long periods of time.  Creation and evolution are two different entities, and it is time this absurd argument is finally laid to rest.
There is one major problem with creationism: the assumption that God exists, which in and of itself is a major debate.  In this way, the inclusion of creationism in school curricula forces some students to suspend their own beliefs (or lack thereof).  This is my major gripe about religion in general, and many Republicans in particular - nobody can come near their right to believe, worship, pray, etc., but they continually insist on thrusting their beliefs upon those with differing opinions.  It's a "have your cake and eat it too" philosophy which is disturbing in and of itself, and the effectiveness due to the sheer number of people that subscribe to it is downright frightening.
Sarah Palin has to be the most anti-science candidate ever nominated by a major political party. She makes George Bush look like Einstein. America is rapidly falling behind the curve for science education and research and a McCain/Palin presidency would almost certainly leave us even further behind.
Great discussion....but it is obvious that McCain is the riskier choice when it comes to science.  He approaches science and technology as if it is something that happens in a black box!  Given the Republicans attack against smart people and intellectuals (remember you're an "Elitist" if you excel in your academics as Obama did and McCain didn't), he is not the best person to lead from a science and technology perspective.
The US has fallen way behind in science and technology...spend a few minutes in the Comp Sci, Physics and Engineering schools at our major colleges and it will become evident.  By the way, Palin is not an academic either.  
It is clear that Obama is the best to deliver on the science and technology needs for our country.  He understands what it means to be smart and what it takes to excell academically.  McCain/Palin represent the continued "dumbing down" of America which has resulted in us falling behind (see CERN opening).  We've had a dumb president for the last 8 years and we see where that has gotten us. The window of opportunity is now for the US to take the lead in bio-tech and energy and Obama's leadership and example will position us well in those areas.
Re ME: Why not teach creationism and evolution at the same time? quite simply because one is based on religion and the other provable scientific observation. I would rather my tax dollars pay for the children to learn things that are actually applicable as opposed to religous dogma. The separation of church and state is what differentiates us from the sharia ruled middle east, where religion controls ever facet of law and goverment. And we've all seen just how well that works. If you want your children to be taught creationism, enroll them in a catholic school; however, religion, any religion, has no place in a public, goverment funded, establishment.
Catholic school is an oxymoron.  Teaching creationism in school is just crazy.
The people who are asking that science and creationism should be taught side by side clearly have no idea what science means. Science is man's creation concerned with describing the PHYSICAL world and phenomena. Hypothesis must be TESTED. Exactly how is someone supposed to test the hypothesis of creationism? Creationism is an idea about our spiritual world and thus cannot be observed, felt, touched or tasted-it can never be proven nor disproven. This means pure and simple creationism is not science. You would never demand clergy to teach economics so why would you demand scientists teach theology?
Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it has to be proven again and again through the scientific method. Many Christian funadamentalists like to use the word theory in the more mundane form and say it is "only" a theory. By the scientific method creationism is at best a hypothesis.... Keep creationism (in its many forms) either in church or in a class in Religious Theology.
TR, Colorado, "I was unaware that Canada & Mexico were "Abroad"", Merriam-Webster gives the following (note !#3):

1 : over a wide area : widely
2 : away from one's home
3 : beyond the boundaries of one's country
4 : in wide circulation : about
5 : wide of the mark : astray
The problem with evolution is that while it is still a theory, it is being presented as a scientific law--which it isn't.
To be honest, I was a bit sad at how little work was done on the Ocean and Water questions.  I mean, c'mon, 75% of the planet?  Freshwater is currently treated as 'nearly free', but most places realise that it's getting tight.  There're some changes coming on those fronts.
The Church of England is right, The church should make a formal apology to Charles Darwin  just as the RC church formally apologized to Galileo.

And Sarah Palin, get off your holier than thou horse and get a grasp of creation reality.
The problem with evolution is that while it is still a theory, it is being presented as a scientific law--which it isn't.

You are misunderstanding basic scientific terminology here.  In science a law is a simple, fundamental statement that is supported by direct observation and usually can be reduced to a mathematical equation like  
the law of gravity:  F = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2.

A theory is an often very complex explanation for a set of observations that is verifiable and has been verified multiple times.  Small details of the theory may be in dispute, but the core is almost universally accepted by the scientific community.

A good example of a theory is the theory of relativity: it has been proven over and over again by experimentation and observation without exception.  It is without doubt the way the world works, but is correctly still labeled a theory.  Evolution is similar - while there may be differences on details of mechanism or timing, there is almost universal consensus on the process of mutation and natural selection as the force that produced the variety of life we see today.
I deplore the idea that my mind and many others were purposely and deliberatly influenced by this fantasy called creation in "sunday school" when growing up.  I had no choice. They had no choice. Now we have a choice to save future generations from this lie and fantasy called creationism. Stop being wayward sheep following the flock, the herd.

People like Palin want you to believe society needs this as some kind of "moral compass" and put in the school system, which can't be further from the truth. They want to force their world views on your kids and make you feel morally wrong in the process if you don't go along. We have far too many adults running the show who were all victims from a Judeo-Christian fantasy forced on them as children and either don't know it, or don't have the brains to know what is real and what is not.
First of all you will not find any high school textbooks with a chapter titled "The Law of Evolution".  As scientists and teachers we are very aware of the difference between a theory and a law.  The problem with creationism is that it can not be varified in a proper scientific manner.  That is there is no substantial scientific evidence that supports creationism.  To be very clear scientific evidence is evidence that can be observed by one of our five senses, can be supported or refuted by a professional scientist, and in the case of experiments must be reproducable.  However there is plenty of this kind of good scientific evidence around to support the THEORY of Evoultion.  Science seeks to explain the things in the physical world, anything outside this (hence the term super-natural)is not science.  There is nothing wrong in believing in creationism just understand it is not science.  So, if we want to teach religion in our public schools then we better be perpared to teach all the religous versions of creation not just the Christian version.  Science is a very powerful tool which has the potential to solve many of our man made problems, and answer ALMOST all of our questions about the world as we know it.  Our next president must have a very clear understanding of science is and be ready to support its ethical advance.  It is probably our only hope for survival.
"The problem with evolution is that while it is still a theory, it is being presented as a scientific law--which it isn't."

No, evolution isn't a law, it's a fact.  It is a fact that is explained by the theory of evolution.
What other theories don't you want schools to teach, the heliocentric theory?  the atomic theory?  How about the germ theory of disease?  Should we teach alternates to these theories and let the kids make up their minds which is correct?


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):

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=1398744

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google