A Demand For a Presidential Debate on Science

Tonight on PBS, Nova is presenting a documentary about Kitzmiller v. Dover, the evolution versus intelligent design trial that took place in the fall of 2005. It is called "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial." I know the subject well, having written extensively about it, and the title is far too modest. What was on trial was not a single pseudoscientific anachronism, but our attitude to life itself.

In 1973, eminent geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." The scientific community now considers evolution as well-proven as the theory of gravity. No other idea on earth is so overwhelmingly supported by evidence and yet so widely rejected. It is rejected by, among others, two presidential candidates, Huckabee and Tancredo.

This denial -- of facts, of reality -- is dangerous. To quote entomologist E.O. Wilson, humans are "the first species in the history of life to become a geophysical force." We are now capable, by various means, of seriously damaging the habitat which sustains us, perhaps permanently. This problem, or more accurately, these many linked problems, can only be understood and solved through science. An American president who is scientifically ignorant -- or worse, disdains the scientific method altogether -- is no longer just a fool or an opportunist, but an embodiment of destruction.

In this interminable process, where presidential candidates squander months barging into diners to promiscuously swap platitudes with old and young, it must be possible to find a few hours to debate something substantial: our survival.

We must demand a debate on science and technology. We know where Huckabee and Tancredo stand (1858), but we don't know much about their (hopefully) more sophisticated fellow candidates. As citizens, we have a right to know: do the people seeking the most powerful job on earth understand the world?

In the next few days I am going to launch a petition asking for this debate. I hope that someone reading this piece will help me persuade a scientific organization or organizations, a university, a science magazine, a science TV show, or some combination of them all, to issue an irresistible invitation to the candidates.

In any event, please join me in asking that the following matters be discussed:

Climate Change. Species Loss. Drought, Pollution, Ownership Of Water. Population And Its Affect On Environment. Alternative Energy Research. Global Diseases And Pandemics. Stem Cell Research. Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria. Vaccination Programs. Drug Patents And Generic Drugs. Space Exploration. The Genome And Its Uses. Commerce And Science. Government Policy and Science. And Science Education.

Meanwhile, check out "Judgment Day" at 8 p.m tonight. It shows the problem, and part of the solution (thanks to a remarkable Republican judge), in miniature.

Comments

[PaulThompson]

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/index.php

As I discuss this issue, the factual significance of evolution and it's philosophical ideology. I have repeated stated that the theory is a failed attempt and perdicting how life came to be. I have not stated how I believe life developed.

I have included a website at the top of this post. In thinking about my argument, I thought that surely there are others that share this concern. Thus, I searched, 'evolution failed theory' and came upon this website. It is a failed theory, the evidence is mounting daily and those that hold on to it are about as sane as those that held onto slavery being a right.

Now you can believe what you want...but don't tread on me!
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/index.php

[luziannagirl]

Chapman wrote about the need to debate : Climate Change. Species Loss. Drought, Pollution, Ownership Of Water. Population And Its Affect On Environment. Alternative Energy Research. Global Diseases And Pandemics. Stem Cell Research. Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria. Vaccination Programs. Drug Patents And Generic Drugs. Space Exploration. The Genome And Its Uses. Commerce And Science. Government Policy and Science. And Science Education.

See, for people like PaulThompson and his associates, there IS no need for debate. You just leave it up to Jerry Falwell and Focus on the Family to come up with public policy on science issues.

While the rest of us are debating, they are goose-stepping around making their theocracy into public policy.

[luziannagirl]

You know what, you creationists and intelligent designers are NOT going to have the last word here.

The issue is NOT that scientists don't have a "reverence for our Creator" or that science is looking for evidence of a creator or not "in the first place". Scientists aren't invading your churches and homes, unless you consider modern science-based inventions and technology that keep us all healthy and happy an invasion.

The issue is an attack on science by certain religious groups.

It's nothing new; for ages various religious groups have attacked literature, history, other religions, anything that threatens their power base by revealing a mystery about the world that religion had previously filled with stories and myths of their own, often as evidence of their superiority and legitimacy for ultimate, un-trumpable power.

You religious folk tend to want to interject and superimpose your world views on every aspect of human life, and you know what, I for one am way tired of it. Just try to get educated, get married, have a baby, or even to die without the preachers showing up out of the woodwork, trying essentially to co-opt the scene for themselves. It's sorry and sad, and to think that you guys purport to show all of us the way to enlightenment stooping so low, well, pardon me if I don't buy it. Or, at least, buy your version of it.

Sorry, the line is drawn. You can't have science, at least not without a fight. Get back in your pulpits where you belong, and get out of my tax-supported public school science classrooms.

Yeah, this entire post has been hijacked by religious nuts, same thing that's happened to science-based governmental policy in the last 7 years.

The need to debate science policy? Maybe first we need to make sure we all agree on the definition of science.

[PaulThompson]

I think this comment thing quit working.

So, and in my opinion this will never happen, but until any of you 'scientist' create
life from material or better yet go make
your own, also. There needs to be a
Reverence for our Creator in our understanding
of what science is looking at in the first place.

[leebowman]

Jvarga wrote: " ¦ no mention of macro evolution in them. Why? Because the term was invented by creationists when they couldn't ignore the evidence of evolution any longer."

You're wrong on that point. The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first used by evolutionary Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in a German-language book in 1927, and introduced in the states ten years later.

Steven Jay Gould, in his 'magnum' opus, 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory', discusses both terms at length. Many, like you, say Creationists invented the terms. Not true. Many others say that the terms are irrelevant, in that they explain the same phenomenon, just to a different degree.

Not true as well, IMO. I've studied molecular biology and morphological evolution, and have concluded that the 'broad' term of evolution encompasses different mechanisms. Bacteriological adaptation to achieve antibiotic resistance, while termed evolution, is wholly different from the mechanisms for gaining both evolved heritable traits, and cladistic alterations.

But still you insist, citing textbooks.

"In short, virtually all of my text books ¦ mention evolution but do not break it down into micro- and macroevolution. Its simple evolution."

Books and research studies of molecular genetics, cellular biology and microbiology, would obviously *never* use those two terms. The term macroEv does not apply to those fields.

Again, evolution is not simple. Lumping it all together allows one to say things like "gaining 'antibiotic resistance' proves evolution." Similar to saying that the preponderance of evolutionary research backs it as being "well established", even tho much of that research is either inconclusive, or refuting of random mutations offering selective advantages.

Yes, there's been a lot of paleontologic finds, and lab work of various types. Much of it backs ID as a valid (even necessary) addition. Like it or not, the evidence is that 'evolution' exists as a 'designed in' mechanism to aid species survival, and to produce 'diversity, but in no way, to invent complex innovative changes.

[dgscol]

In the Creationism vrs. Evolution arguements, scientists often overlook that people want and need support from other people and they find this in religious circles. Whereas in Darwin if you fail as an individual you die and everyone is the better for it. Evolution theories have ignored social factors and ecological factors such as interspecies cooperation in their arguements. When scientists do not provide comfort (often try to make you out to be inferior to their relatives) and try to make a monkey out of you, what would you like to think?

The primo subject is science these days, ought to be ethics - how to convert a shallow overture to ethics into actual standards and specifications for conduct, that is fair. Many animal-like scientists think success is just getting some things into print and fighting/beating up on your competitors. This has hurt the quality of scientific work, and hurt the reputation of the integrity in science. For years in fact many people stayed away from the ethic groups, egos and condescension found in scientific circles.

[mhdc]

I have learned a lesson here. I made a serious proposal about a presidential debate on science and hoped I could find some support. I suggested a number of topics which loosely fall under three categories, The Environment; Health and Medicine; and Science and Technology Policy. I think we can all agree that these are important subjects and worth talking about.

Unfortunately, I mentioned evolution in the preface which elicited a series of angry comments from creationists of various types. Although this highlights the importance of one of my suggested topics, science education, it totally distracted everyone from the other 14 science and technology subjects I mentioned, and from the prime reason for the post, a call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology.

I hope I can still find some support for this idea, and from now on, I promise I will skip over the "e" word and go straight on to "f".

Matthew Chapman

[cognate]

Sure, the Creationists are dead wrong and ridiculous, but a better debate would be about state-enforced schooling.

Is it necessary to back the unquestionable benefits of science/knowledge/education by the coercive power of the state?

Isn't ANY scientific argument forfeited when a state official - the judge - dictates what is true?

[PaulThompson]

Ok, I saw this program....my opinion, dumb judge...he doesn't know what he's talking about and admits it in saying this debate isn't over, nor should it be.

[The Collinbrandt]

Science is important but, ethics is more important. Everything scientific must be debated however, we must believe in our heart of hearts that looking into the eyes of a fellow human being, forgiveness is the only action which is unique to humans.

[loslobo]

I wouldn't get so high and mighty, when the vast majority of bloggers ignore science when it comes to IX/XI
Reply | posted 04:12 pm on 11/13/2007

What?? come on day shifters lighten up

OK maybe that was a bit lazy, but I was playing poker. I quit are you happy now???

I was just trying to get the point in that if people would apply the common sense it takes to realize maybe we all are not that special, just lucky enough to come out on top, like the dinosaurs did millions of years ago. Then maybe you had an open mind enought to realize buildings don't fall into their own footprint at free-fall speed, without a little divine intervention causing hundreds of steel beams not only simultaneous but sychronized failure.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Um, were we hatched from the Divine Seed or did
our ancestors descend from the trees? Hmmm...
I think it's a bogus debate. Let's DO talk
the sciencer, though, and figure out how to
reduce national oil consumption by 50% or
more. Not impossible, but important and relevant.

[PaulThompson]

Thanks for activating my account....

As to your reference to this 1973 statement by geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, I hope you and others realize that "evolution" is nothing more than a philosophical ideology of secular humanism/naturalism. There continues to be no proof of macro-type species to species evolution. In my opinion, common sense says that if everything came about by this process¦wouldn"t we be able to find it somewhere? And, since 1973, there are many other scientist who don"t "believe" that we crawled out of a mudpuddle! To our shame, these many, many scientist are silenced and shunned by "THE" "scientific" community. We"ve come along way from Scopes and from 1973. In addition, the silencing of the critics is indeed the State"s establishment of a "religion/worldview." In my opinion, this house of cards will soon fall.

Also, we can measure, observe, predict the forces of gravity...your belief that 'evolution' is the same....is an error.

So, do you really want to debate this....cause in a fair hearing....you're going to lose this debate.

[Lon]

Having presidential candidates debate science would be a useless undertaking. Having them debate how they decide what scientists to trust is another matter though.

[luziannagirl]

Debate? Discussion? How about a quiz?

I'd be satisfied if major candidates were required to pass a 10-question high-school level general science knowledge quiz, carefully monitored and graded by a qualified objective, nonpartisan entity, of course.

Oh, dang, I forgot. Impossible. There's no way to achieve a non-partisan presidential science quiz since facts, logic, and reason have now become the sole province of the partisan left.

It's always somethin' with this NeoCon crowd isn't it?

Next thing we know, they'll be declaring breathing to be liberal, immoral and "of the Devil", and insisting THEIR leaders don't breathe, or if they occasionally do, are automatically forgiven by God and therefore worthy of deconstructing, oops, leading the country.