It’s fine that Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will talk about “faith, values and other current issues” at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., on April 13 — but so far they’ve declined invitations to take part in ScienceDebate 2008, a proposed election-year debate on science issues ranging from climate change and space travel to energy policy and America’s technological leadership.
These are complex, substantive issues that have received too little media attention in the election cycle but that will affect America’s future far more than Colombian trade policy or the candidates’ bowling scores.
The next best chance for a science debate appears to be in early May before the Oregon primary.To learn more about the effort, check the ScienceDebate 2008 Web site.
20 Comments
I’m thinking a Science debate would be totally inappropriate at Messiah College!
I think a science debat would be totally inapproiate given those two participants.
What science do you want to talk about Scholfield?
How about the science of converting manure into bio fuel?
Or perhaps the epidemiological implications of sexually transmitted disease in the work environment?
Oh wait…
I remember now what you’re interested in Randy Scholfield, Glooooooobal Warminggggg ..
This debate should include all three of the candidates.
They should hold it early in the day so’s as not to keep Senator McCain up to late. He gets cranky.
You wouldn’t like him when he’s cranky.
“Bush administration, America has been subject to what can only be called antiscientific governance. Scientists have been ignored, threatened, suppressed, and censored across agencies, across areas of expertise, and across issues. Policies have gone forward repeatedly without adequate scientific input and sometimes in spite of it, and have subsequently backfired.
At the same time—and perhaps not coincidentally—the fortunes of the nation have suffered and the prospects of many Americans, of the American Dream itself, have diminished. From bridge collapses to the failure to protect New Orleans (both before and after Katrina), these days the country can’t even seem to deliver upon the most basic of promises to its citizens—to ensure their safety. Along with the neglect of science has come a broader neglect of expertise, competence, and even functional government. These are, perhaps, matters not so disparate. For science doesn’t merely provide a way of expanding knowledge of the world. It doesn’t just provide answers to pressing questions; it changes the conversation itself. Science—and the broader way of thinking that comes with it—trains its adherents and practitioners to relish the very act of questioning for its own sake, of figuring out what’s true and false, of determining what works and what fails. Science can detect dark matter and dark energy; it can also build you dependable levees. By awakening to the full political implications of science and scientific thinking, the current crop of presidential candidates will stand a far better chance of being able to steer America back along the right course. The political currents are in place for a true scientific revival in this country, and Americans have the unique chance to host an election process that adds, rather than detracts from the public’s general understanding of all things scientific. Tired of Bush, Americans now have the opportunity to elect a new leader who is his antithesis—a president who understands how science works, and who surrounds him- or herself with trusted science experts so as to remain continually informed; one who grasps that scientific uncertainty is a fundamental facet of reality to be embraced, rather than to be exploited as an excuse for political inaction.”
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/10/dr_president.php
The next President will end the current administration’s disturbing legacy ends on January 20, 2009:
9 months 13 days, 22 hours, 18 minutes
Well there lindainks55, if you wanted a candidate that understands science, then maybe you should have supported Ron Paul. He is a Medical Doctor with education steeped heavily in science.
Don’t worry Schofield. All the candidates have “adressed” Climate Change.
Do you want Obama, Hillary, or McCain to actually say what they plan to do about it?
Yikes, what a concept.
Democrats like Linda are not interested in indisputable science (that which we know to be true from observation and experimentation).
Only that which is based on assumption and conjecture and therefore prone to being turned into political mush is what gets Linda out of bed in the morning.
Actually rfl, I stay in bed all day being lazy, and nothing gets me out of bed in the mornings.
What was it you were saying about things we know to be true now that we’ve proven how credible a source you are?
A discussion of science would be beneficial to all, Particularly with the rampant antiscience and pseudoscience we see today.
Inviting McCain (or, hell, 3rd-party candidates, for that matter) would make it even better.
My only caveat: involve scientists in asking the questions, thanks. I wouldn’t want it to sink to crap like “can people ‘beat’ the polygraph?”
I guess this couldnt be because faith based campaigning gets you votes of millions. Science, eh, not so much.
Kinda like obama throwing the lgbt community under the bus. Evangelical blacks = lots of votes. Gay folks, not so much.
Pandering is as pandering does…
As for social science and political science, ksfarmgrrl hit the nail on the head with her comment.
That’s an easy question to answer; you don’t need to know any facts to talk about faith!
Some scientists now think that God is hiding in new subatomic particles being created at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory outside Chicago – particles that might reveal the secrets of the creation of the universe, so far unexplained by the accepted but inadequate scientific particle theories of modern physics.
(Job 38:1-41; 1 Kings 19:11-12)
“Some scientists now think that God is hiding in new subatomic particles being created at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory outside Chicago –”
So,
MAN is now making the stuff of “God”?
Hell I’ve been saying that for years.
How about a science debate on if a bumble bee can fly. I heard that scientist say it can not fly. Should we believe those scientist?
Republicans don’t believe in science. Democrats should!
“Republicans don’t believe in science. Democrats should!”
I’ve been a republican all my life until recently, and I’ve never believed in god or religion, I’ve never understood people who think the right is religious and the left isn’t. There are just as many church goers (actual beilievers?.. who knows.) in each camp. I figure when I see any politician bring up faith, they are pandering to the ignorant masses.
zspruy gcqlmso xeugsac zuhbgjfi ktjihzyf mnsc azqlwmhs
douwphm ojqwgm zaqmlwf iglhkse zqfcvjpe iwxczskgb zawumintv
One Trackback
Best Secure Credit Cards…
Get Your Credit Report And Score…