Slashdot Mirror
Science Debate 2008
bhmit1 writes "BusinessWeek is reporting about Science Debate 2008, an attempt to put the scientific issues front and center in the US Presidential race. After 12,000 scientists signed on in support of the idea of a debate focused on science, no campaign has replied to an invitation to such a debate. The article notes that only one candidate has said much about science issues in the campaign, and that some who are running are sufficiently anti-science as to deny evolution. There is a link to a comparison of the candidates' positions on issues informed by science. (Yes, Ron Paul is included.)"
So are you talking macro or micro evolution? They are entirely separate things. While I believe in micro-evolution (small changes in a species) which most certainly can be proven by science, I think macro-evolution (you know the kind that says we evolved from something else) is bunk and it most definitely cannot be (and hasn't been) proven by science.
So what do you mean by evolution and what does the submitter mean by evolution and what do the candidates mean by evolution? It isn't straight forward and cut and dry.
Please do not confuse scientists with historians. The major difference is that in history, anyone can come up with a new thesis, and go select evidence that supports that thesis. In science, any person can come along, perform one experiment, and completely disprove a major scientific theory. Let me repeat that for the slow readers. Historians select evidence to fit their thesis and scientists attempt to explain all available evidence.
Disagreement with scientists, by a non-scientist, is simple ignorance. Not that science gets everything right, but science is quite simply the most successful system humans have ever devised to determine what is true. If you have a better idea, go test it, and write a paper. Anyone can do that. I know the media loves to portray science as this "ivory tower" but it's a fantasy. If you devise a way for objects to rise from the surface of the earth, rather than fall toward it, and a theory to explain why, you can win a Nobel prize. (ob:exclude EM fields we already understand)
Politicians, not being in the business of proving/disproving things, must carefully pay attention to, and act on the opinion of the scientific community. If they discover tomorrow that lead, or Botox, or Bisphenol-A is detrimental to humans, I expect them to take action and remove it from my enviroment, and prevent unscrupulous people from selling it. If on the other hand they don't trust scientists, I don't want them in office because they're going to do me harm!!!
Politicians do have control over scientific purse strings. If they find disagreement with some scientific result, for whatever reason, I find it completely appropriate to pit the professionals against one another by funding new studies. The only appropriate way for a politician to respond to science they don't like is to fund new studies that may support their ideas. To ignore contrary evidence and the opinion of the majority of scientists is ignorant and dangerous. As you say, Republicans disagree disproportionally with many scientists. Such people are ignorant, and dangerous. All that said, topics such as evolution have been studied for hundreds of years, and it is unlikely in the extreme that we're going to discover tomorrow that the earth is only 5000 years old.
Your idea that scientists liking their cushy jobs and funding is fantasy as well. Sure there are people that do like their cushy jobs, but you know what? They stop publishing. Every university has plenty of professors that only teach and don't publish. They're guaranteed their salary, and have nice lives. People who write papers and do active research are driven by something else. Fame, glory, prizes, whatever. It's a very competitive field.
So go sit your luddite ass down and try to disprove ANY scientifically accepted idea. I look forward to seeing your paper.
Those not willing do do the hard work, must accept the findings of those of us who are willing.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.