Can we summarize the presidential candidates’ opinions regarding science?
Are there any that will champion ongoing research, that will have a meaningful relationship with a Science Advisor, and have long term vision?
I vaguely recall during a debate a while ago, Tim Russert asked something like “By a show of hands, who believes in the theory of evolution”. But of course, I don’t remember who raised their hands (and who didn’t).
And what are their various attitudes towards space exploration?
I realise there is so much info about the candidates I could find on the web, but let’s condense the science stuff into this thread.
Huckabee and two other candidates don’t believe in evolution. I think the others were Brownback and Tancredo, who are both out now. But I could be misremembering.
I’m fairly sure Huckabee thinks the scientific method is the work of Mephistopheles, and that anything he likes which happens to be the result of technology was, in fact, devised after its inventor received a direct revelation from Metatron.
One of the interesting things that he says is “If they want a President who doesn’t believe in God, there’s probably plenty of choices…”. I would like he to name one major candidate who does not profess such a belief. (Or does he believe they are lying?) In fact, when a Congressman recently essentially said that he was an atheist, he became the highest elected official to a federal office to have done so.
I agree with Quartz. What he said on the You Tube clip in the link actually sounds sensible to me. He believes God created the world; he doesn’t know how God did it, and it shouldn’t matter. That’s close enough to my position which is I believe God created the world. Based on current scientific theory, I believe God did so using mechanisms such as evolution and the Big Bang. Then again, I also believe that not only are evolution and Christianity are a long way from incompatible.
It’s simple. A guy who doesn’t believe in evolution is either lying or a moron. Huckabee tried to bash a perfectly reasonable and simple question and re-interpret it as asking whether he believed in Evolution OR God which is complete bullcrap.
He then proceeded to imply there were several atheist presidential contenders which is even more bullcrap.
Then he makes fun of people who believe they are descended from primates…that’s just…wow!
Yeah, the guy is smart and a good orator but that video rightfully makes him look really bad to any smart, knowledgeable person.
I think he explicitly gives his position on evolution, especially by saying “if anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate…” (humans are primates) and mention nothing about evolution or the Big Bang being the means of God’s creation. Personally I believe that his stance of the issue of evolution is relevant, since the leader of the most powerful nation on earth denying a fundamental aspect of the entire field of biology and anthropology does not sit well with me. But we may differ in that opinion.
You may want to sign on to Science Debate 2008 if you want a clear discussion about these issues.
More from the Science article review:
HRC - has tapped lots of Bill’s former advisors, pledges much funding for “green energy”, science advisor would report directly to her, plans on doubling NIH budget over the next ten years.
Obama - praised for his evidence based critical thinking, would like to double fed spending on basic research, better fund education and would delay NASA’s manned program to pay for it, “strong interest in applying science to public health challenges”, big on global warming.
Edwards- science advisor would be “an assistant to the president”, promises money for research, against nuclear power, his misrepresentation of science as a med-mal man has some skeptical of him.
Guiliani - doesn’t talk of science much.
McCain- global warming emphasized in his campaign and was critical of Bush’s handling of the science, waffles on teaching of evolution.
Huckabee - they note that he historically takes “a strong stance” as a social conservative but then moves to the center when it “comes time to act”, is predicted to fund NIH well if he’s in office, has called environmentalists “wackos”
Romney -as governor was a strong supporter of science research, opposed teaching of intelligent design in the science classroom, but starting talking a different game once he starte his presidential run, is scientifically and high tech litereate.
Does that phrase bug anyone as much as me? I mean it’s a question about science and science isn’t supposed to be about belief. (If Tim had asked “Do you believe in gravity?” people would wonder if he was huffing paint.) I’m just surprised that alot of people don’t ask “Do you accept evolution?” (Then again maybe that wording isn’t quite right but the point is science is suppose to be about evidence, not belief.)
No the wording doesn’t bother me. The meaning was crystal clear. I Huckabee a few days later seem to back away from his denial, claiming he thought believing in evolution meant disbelieving in a Creator. Since then, I have heard other statements veering back toward the “Creation Science” view. This tells me that, at best, Huckabee does not understand what evolution means, or at worst he is a lying panderer or a true believer of creation “science”. Not sure which of those last 2 is worse.