Candidates speak out on science

j. Nauright, St. Augustine, FL — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:10:53 GMT

What about the teaching of creationism?

Candidates speak out on science

Richard O'Neil East lynne Missouri — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:25:55 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

fadda eart — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:33:03 GMT

this election needs a third party wacko to spice things up...
any ideas?
why not ex-President Daddy?
he's got a term left.

Candidates speak out on science

Dave, OK — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:42:10 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

TR, Colorado — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:09:35 GMT

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".

Candidates speak out on science

Dani — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:22:15 GMT

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?

Candidates speak out on science

Raul, Las Vegas, Nevada — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:44:44 GMT

TL: Mexico and Canada are 'abroad.' Really. They are outside the US.

Candidates speak out on science

CM, Modesto CA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:39:46 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

steve smyth — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:40:35 GMT

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...

Candidates speak out on science

FBiots, CO — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:33:22 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Chris, Reading PA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:24:18 GMT

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... [...]

Candidates speak out on science

sane smith — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:35:55 GMT

fadda eart --

Palin is the wacko...

Candidates speak out on science

Jeff, Atlanta — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:40:24 GMT

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!

Candidates speak out on science

Larry, Orlando, Florida — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:46:31 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Frank Weigert.. Wilmington, DE — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:10:51 GMT

"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

Candidates speak out on science

RB, Illinois — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:49:44 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Amy, TX — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:17:13 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Lanny Slusher — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:35:56 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Lynn Stucky, Aiken, SC — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:07:32 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Kurt, Little Rock, AR — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:11:20 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Jason Cincinnati OH — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:42:27 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Jerry, East Wenatchee, WA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:07:55 GMT

Creationism is not a science.

Candidates speak out on science

Roy, Arkansas — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:08:48 GMT

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?

Candidates speak out on science

Lucky Pianwi — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:46:16 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

me — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:56:33 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

hopsing — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:01:40 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

TR — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:07:45 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Dr. David J. Frey, Worcester, MA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:13:41 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Thomas Danilo, Hayward, CA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:06:38 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Anthony M, St. Cloud, MN — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:09:21 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Thomas Danilo, Hayward, CA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:10:38 GMT

Dr. David J. I believe that creationism should be tough in the churches and science in the schools.

Candidates speak out on science

Onevoice, Frederick MD — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:17:47 GMT

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

Candidates speak out on science

Aaron Wadsworth, Bloomington, Indiana — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:18:12 GMT

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).

Candidates speak out on science

Daniel Ft Lauderdale — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:24:20 GMT

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

Candidates speak out on science

Mel in Wisconsin — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:27:19 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Kevin CA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:42:41 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Cal — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:27:03 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

SDP, Lithonia, GA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:52:50 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Walsh, Greensboro, NC — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:27:21 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Derek in Seattle — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:00:21 GMT

Catholic school is an oxymoron. Teaching creationism in school is just crazy.

Candidates speak out on science

Central Village, CT — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:02:20 GMT

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?

Candidates speak out on science

Christy, Ohio — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:57:46 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Chet Bunnell, St Louis, MO — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:10:05 GMT

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

Candidates speak out on science

Chet Bunnell — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:15:08 GMT

The problem with evolution is that while it is still a theory, it is being presented as a scientific law--which it isn't.

Candidates speak out on science

CanadianQuinn, Halfiax, NS — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:22:57 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:53:26 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Lon Grabowski — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:19:07 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:29:12 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Brian Muhr, Charleston, IL — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:01:36 GMT

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.

Candidates speak out on science

Don Massi — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:20:15 GMT

"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?

Candidates speak out on science

bob belden walla walla, wa — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:05:52 GMT

I think science can be used to decentralize many of our products and services, thus lessening the need for fuel consuming transportation systems. This would have an adverse effect upon corporate entities, and help independent, family owned, locally owned and operated businesses. That is not going to happen if we depend on corporations to control science at college, and business levels. We need a federal and state system that generates funds for science. Senator Obama's comfort with government involvement leads me to believe he would be the better choice for advancing scientific achievment and science as an answer to many of our problems. We now need an outside threat like we had after Sputnik to thrust us into the future. That threat has arrived, and her name is Sarah Palin.
The scientific community has to get out the vote, and not be apathetic about national elections despite how dirty the tactics are.

Candidates speak out on science

tom — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:13:26 GMT

what about teaching creationism haha..they do that in church where it belongs...philosophy and religious mythology have their place and it is not in scientific debate or experimentation...why are you religious people so insecure in your beliefs that you need to force them upon other people? the difference is very clear, science uses physical testing and observation to come to logical conclusions while religion dismisses them in favor of an answer that suits their need for power and domination over others

Candidates speak out on science

Kevin, San Diego, CA — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:17:06 GMT

Well said, Don! In considering the competing theories of evolution and creationism, however, we don't want to neglect the third theory of the origins of life, that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Here's the site if you're unversed in this doctrine- our children deserve to know ; )
www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Candidates speak out on science

tom — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:17:52 GMT

also lol, the THEORY of evolution is presented as a theory and not as natural law. find me an accepted scientific publication which claims that evolution as it is taught is natural law. find me ONE. do yourself a favor and get a dictionary and learn what theory means. and quit reading things that arent there just to suit whatever agenda you obviously have

Candidates speak out on science

dan — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:17:19 GMT

The flaw with secular beliefs is most believe that Darwin's theories cover how life began and it doesn't. The assumption that it does, shows ignorance of the uniformed. Even Darwin didn't deny the existence of a Creator.

You see science tells us that only life can create life. There is no scientific model that can be demonstrated otherwise. Science tells us that inanimate objects cannot create animate objects.

So using empirical science, life must have therefore been spontaneously created, then evolved. If life was spontaneously created then there is a Creator.

Time magazine stated that 90% of Americans believe in a Creator...I suspect the above is the reasoning why. You don't have to prescribe to any religion to believe in a Creator.

The other 10% are hateful, ignorant people with little understanding and obviously no reasoning capabilities.

Candidates speak out on science

steve smyth — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:34:45 GMT

Jeff/Atlanta...
exposure via the www is indeed a terrifying concept...google owns me right now...the refinements of the adwords responding to email text are startling...I have a huge email file going...with everything from soup to sedition discussed at various times...bring it on!
some of the links I get to see because of the bizarrely eclectic nature of my correspondence are amazing...this gadget is awesome!
I write constantly about the folly of becoming an Algorite...googlebots see only reference to Al Gore...I get all his hype to jab at without doing anything except raggin' on the guy...how awesomely serendipitous is that?
there's absolutely no escape...unless one wishes to become totally ineffectual, as I am seeing many Folks my age (61) doing...no can do!
nice to hear from you!
T'ROW DA BUMS OUT!
political commentary so it stays on topic, eh?

Candidates speak out on science

orion, linthicum, md — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:41:33 GMT

i don't want creationism taught in school & i think christians wouldn't want science taught in church. if you allow one relegion in the classroom, then you have to allow the others. aren't there already private schools that do that? i don't want "belief" in the classroom. i want facts.

Candidates speak out on science

K, VT — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:31:56 GMT

Wow talk about Biased, If I saw more of McCain in this article I would have to check to see a panty line. I'm sick of the media sucking up to this same old same old Republican who cant even use a computer let alone lead us into the future. Yes there was "Some" mention of Obama but it was more of a nod to his existence rather than the facts of what his term in office as our President in 2008 would really mean for Science and Technology.

More Focus on Facts! Sensationalism belongs in Tabloids!

[ALAN ADDS: Maybe part of the reason for the appearance that there's more emphasis on McCain's views is that Obama had sent in his answers a couple of weeks earlier, which I noted in this item:]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/05/1355855.aspx

Candidates speak out on science

scott york, PA — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:38:36 GMT

Some people think that both science and creationism should be taught in schools and let our children decide for themselves. One problem, they only want to teach christian creationism, they have no regard for those of other faiths. Don't you think this would be offensive to those of the jewish, muslim, hindu faiths. Not to mention that most sects of christianity can't even begin to agree on which version of the bible should be used! This is why we are supposed to have a separation of church and state! If you want your child to be taught creationism put them in a private christian school, and quit trying to convert the masses!

Candidates speak out on science

Toby, Lincoln, Nebraska — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:52:55 GMT

Creationism DOES NOT need to be alongside science classes in public schools. If one wants to learn about it, they have the freedom to choose from a myriad of religious institutions, churches, temples, etc. That "option" is already available from established private institutions for those who wish to "learn about it". We should be free to choose if we want to be religious in this country or not.

Candidates speak out on science

Malibu Scott — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:17:50 GMT

TR wrote:

"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".

Gov. Palin knows a lot about space. She can see it from her house.

Candidates speak out on science

justanothervet — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:23:09 GMT

Competent centered teachers with real life labor (4 letter word - WORK) experience would be a welcome anomally in public school as well as universities. I say anomally because it will never be the custom to have experienced educators with real life skills (labor) as an added virtue.Self proclaimed certified Intellectuals guard the gates of the ivory towers and had sooner die than allow common smart experienced business professional into the teaching establishments.Theory of Evolution, and or The Holy Christian Bible as text should be a right of each individual state voted on for approval by the citizens every four years.Screw The Supreme Court because they have shown themselves to not be supreme.

Candidates speak out on science

William, Springfield, VA — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:23:28 GMT

If you want your kids to learn creationism, PUT THEM IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL THAT TEACHES IT!!!! Its just that simple. Public schools have subjects that the entire country must teach, you eliviate other children's religions by teaching such a thing. Teach science by the book, if you want your son or daughter to learn christianity, take them to church. I'm sooo tired of parents that want teachers to raise their kids for them. STOP BEING LAZY!

Candidates speak out on science

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:55:21 GMT

William, Springfield...Excellent point ! I have always wondered about what the real motive is for putting kids in church based schools. Roman Catholic being on top of the heap. You can bet that the parents in many situations are passing them off to get their dose of "religiousness" while never or rarely seeing the inside of a church.

Candidates speak out on science

a p garcia — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:00:54 GMT

It would really surprise me if any of the canidates has any degree in SCIENCE. I don't consider sitting on a science committee and listening to mostly lawyers as substituting for science.