1. Comment #75510 by obscured by clouds on October 2, 2007 at 10:17 pm

It was great to hear your speech Thursday night. And a Pink Floyd fan, you are alright in my book!

I'm all up for such a debate, though I do not have the vision that it will ever happen. That being said I think this is a good idea and I would fully support it. It sounds like the start of a good movement.

This could be in the spirit of the Out Campaign. You have a mission statement now organize the movement. Then let the community run with it.

Even if it fails utterly, it would bring attention to the important issues. Just to watch them squirm a little on this subject would be worth it at the least. If this, which I think it could, gets enough attention they would at some point be confronted with the idea. What they say would just be more fodder.

Other Comments by obscured by clouds

2. Comment #75514 by ChrisMcL on October 2, 2007 at 10:21 pm

Sounds like a quiz show where all the contestants look like the host.

How about we just insist that more questions about science and religion be asked during the numerous upcoming debates already scheduled? I know that this year I will be voting for the candidate that is compatible with my atheism.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

3. Comment #75524 by Bob Johnson on October 2, 2007 at 11:35 pm

Instead of a quizz show, I'd be more interested in how they feel their views would be translated into policy.

Other Comments by Bob Johnson

4. Comment #75527 by mpbrockman on October 2, 2007 at 11:58 pm

Beautiful idea. Unfortunately, it requires both that a significant portion of the American electorate be scientifically literate, and that the candidates perceive that this bloc is worth courting. I am sadly convinced that neither is the case.

Still, I'd have loved to see Sagan host this.

Other Comments by mpbrockman

5. Comment #75529 by eric.malitz on October 3, 2007 at 12:09 am

Something like this will never happen. Science is too foreign to most people in this country to enter into the main issues. And politics is mainly to blame. Politics is a buisness- politians are salesmen with lots of apprentice salesmen helping out. We live in a world where science is essential to the well-being of the world- without proper science understanding and funding from this point, many more species are soon going to die out along with major natural habitat destruction. This should be a turning point in the world where the leaders shouldnt be politicians but scientists with real understanding of the world we live in and of peoples' needs and wants. But it wont happen. Keeping this planet from becoming a barren wasteland seems to be the most important thing right now-because thats where we are headed.
I certainly don't believe in destiny but the closest thing to it kin my mind seems the inevitable fact that humans are now in the process of destroying the natural world and, in my opinion, will most certainly carry out this major feat to the greatest extent in a couple life times (I dont have specifics except extinction of every large mammal, except captives).
I often imagine politicians at home, in bed, at night, about to go to sleep, with a smile on their face and the thought in their head "well, this will all be gone soon, as long as I have my big house, and obedient wife..as long as we can keep these suckers in line just a few more years..none of this nature crap matters, its all for me.."

Other Comments by eric.malitz

6. Comment #75532 by Inferno on October 3, 2007 at 12:16 am

Is there an American version of Stephen Fry's show "QI"? A show like that with Presidential candidates would be brilliant.

Other Comments by Inferno

7. Comment #75533 by Philip1978 on October 3, 2007 at 12:24 am

"An American president who does not understand science - or worse, disdains it - is no longer just a fool, but potentially lethal."

What an amazing comment, if anybody has proven this to be sure its dear old George, his continued ignorance of stem cell research alone has caused such untold trouble.

Inferno, right with you there, I love QI, I even went to see it being filmed earlier this year and I thought it was excellent. Stephen Fry is a man who I have a lot of respect for, very funny, intelligent and swears like a trooper! I wont say who was on the show unless I am suitably bribed!!

Cheers all,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

8. Comment #75540 by benjdm on October 3, 2007 at 1:04 am

SEA (Scientists and Engineers for America) could probably help out with this. Maybe Scientific American, Discover, the Science Channel...can't hurt to try.

Other Comments by benjdm

9. Comment #75542 by hakija on October 3, 2007 at 1:08 am

The American Academy of Science could sponsor it. But how "mainstream" would the voters take it? To many, this would be as odd as a debate on how they would handle the arrival of aliens from Zeta Reticuli.

I love it. Let's move on this. I like the idea of the various magazines and channels being present, they could display their logos around the set. Add an australopithecus skull on display at center stage, the camera panning the candidates with it in the foreground.

Other Comments by hakija

10. Comment #75549 by Steve Wrathall on October 3, 2007 at 1:35 am

"Through industrial pollution, the destruction of our rain forests, over-fishing, over-hunting and so on, we can destroy just about all life on earth."

This statement is as daft as anything the 3 creationist presedential hopefuls could come up with. No-one has ever come up with a scientifically credible mechanism wherby these could cause the destruction of " just about all life on earth." Managable regional problems, yes.

The deep green religion it represents is a greater threat to rationalism than theism. Creationism has been successfully excluded from all modern state curricula in developed nations. The most extreme environmentalist propaganda (e.g. Al Gore's sci-fi horror movie) permeates education, including teacher education.

Other Comments by Steve Wrathall

11. Comment #75554 by NJS on October 3, 2007 at 1:51 am

Would a candidate who nailed their colours to the mast of evolution and stem cell research be committing electoral suicide though?

I see the US as being so messed up that someone has to "exagerrate" their faith to gain trust as a place where honesty would be fatal. Of course there are millions of rational people who would welcome a pro-science stance but I get the impression that as I said the "practicalities" of politics make it a no-no.

Other Comments by NJS

12. Comment #75556 by PaulThompson on October 3, 2007 at 1:56 am

If you look at the other presidential debates they have all been held for other interest groups, one was for gay rights, one for blacks one for mexicans and one for evangelical christians etc etc. The problem is that "Scientists" or rationalists don't hold the same political sway as these other minority interest groups. This is perhaps understadable as scientists and atheists wouldn't want to label themselfs a minority interest group. I guess this argument lends support for RD's ideas around creating a political atheism.

Other Comments by PaulThompson

13. Comment #75564 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 2:37 am

This statement is as daft as anything the 3 creationist presedential hopefuls could come up with. No-one has ever come up with a scientifically credible mechanism wherby these could cause the destruction of " just about all life on earth." Managable regional problems, yes.

The deep green religion it represents is a greater threat to rationalism than theism. Creationism has been successfully excluded from all modern state curricula in developed nations. The most extreme environmentalist propaganda (e.g. Al Gore's sci-fi horror movie) permeates education, including teacher education.

I agree that the idea of humanity destroying life on earth is absurd, but so is any idea that global warming, if allowed to continue. may cause only 'Managable' regional problems, or that what Gore says is 'extreme propoganda'.

There seems to be a problem not just with people believing things without evidence, but also not believing things when there is substantial evidence (such as changed weather patters, sea level rises, recession of glaciers, shrinkage of the Arctic ice). Another version of faith and delusion.

Personally, I would be interested to know of any definition of 'manageable' and 'regional' could fit the consequences of sea level rises that have been predicted for this century, or the changes in weather patterns.

Other Comments by steve99

14. Comment #75572 by dvespertilio on October 3, 2007 at 3:20 am

Excuse me, but E. O Wilson is one of the most respected environmental scientists alive. We are facing, indeed, are already in, an environmental crisis of epoch proportions. If you want a future of an impoverished humanity living on a biologically impoverished planet, just keep going in the same direction we're going now. Any one who thinks this isn't so is just dreaming. The scientific indicators of MAJOR world-wide environmental upheaval are everywhere. Only the unenlightened who don't give a damn would say otherwise.

As to the idea of a scientific debate among presidential candidates: a wonderful idea that hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of flying. The candidates don't care, for the most part. Most of the electorate doesn't care, w/ spades, no matter what public opinion polls say. Oh, yeah, everyone's concerned about the environment, until it hits their bottom line. Things will probably get much, much worse before any significant number of Americans sits up and takes notice. Sad and scary, but, alas, I fear, probably true.

Other Comments by dvespertilio

15. Comment #75573 by dvespertilio on October 3, 2007 at 3:27 am

Of course, if the Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan or Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons, we will have an environmental crisis that will be a whole lot worse, very, very quickly. Wouldn't rational people be calling for world wide nuclear disarmament about right now. And, gee whiz, THEY HAVE BEEN FOR SOME TIME. Again, E. O. Wilson is right. We need "to put aside our metaphysical differences" and get down to the task of working on saving what we all have in common, the world in which we live. (See his interview w/ Bill Moyers back in early July of this year, you can find it in archived episodes of Moyers' JOURNAL.)

Other Comments by dvespertilio

16. Comment #75588 by _J_ on October 3, 2007 at 5:04 am

Lovely idea. If only!

Chapman is right to reflect, at the end, on the importance of understanding the scientific method. But it shouldn't be assumed that the sort of quiz he is describing would automatically cover this. Careful planning would be needed.

Such a show would need to take care not to appear to be merely an irrelevant science quiz, undertaken by politicians only out of concern for publicity. Questions, and their presentation, ought to be deliberately selected and structured to illustrate firstly the methods by which scientific conclusions are reached, and secondly the relationships between science and policy – ie, how scientifically ignorant policy-making (and politicised science) is dangerous.

Good quiz questions educate. The purpose of such a programme, done well, would only secondarily be to illustrate which presidential candidates are scientifically literate. Its primary function should be to impress upon both the audience and the candidates the relevance and importance of scientific awareness and critical thinking to any senior political post.

Such a show would thereby, incidentally, cast any non-attending candidates in a very bad light. To miss a publicity opportunity to show off one's science reading is one thing. To appear to have hidden from a test of an ability that has demonstrated itself to have great bearing on one's competence is something much more serious.

Other Comments by _J_

17. Comment #75589 by brainsys on October 3, 2007 at 5:07 am

What a terrible suggestion!

The issue is that politicians take decisions on our behalf. We hope they take it on the best possible advice. When the advice is confused they still need to take a decision (unlike most scientists!) and sell it to the general public.

Suppose RD was allowed to run for President. His knowledge in even his specialist subject is not complete and would benefit from input from others in the field. Outside his area it would be positively dangerous for him to assume specific knowledge.

No - we don't need politicians who know science. We want politicians who can work with science. Winston Churchill was an example of a very poor scholar with little academic knowledge outside English & History whose enthusistic and carefully judged use of science and mathematics during WW2 may have made the difference. Contrast that with Hitler. He treated both scientists and generals with disdain. He didn't listen, he knew better. He lost.

No - better a quiz on science (or anything else) where the politician has zero prior knowledge. Lock them in a room with a selection of acedemics who disagree. Then get them to come out and explain to the lay public the issues in this subject area and how they would decide which way to go.

That would be very instructive for the voter!

Other Comments by brainsys

18. Comment #75595 by hungarianelephant on October 3, 2007 at 5:31 am

Sorry, _J_, but I think that's wishful thinking.

I would bet you a season ticket to Stockport County that not one voter in 100 could give you a reasonable explanation of the scientific method. Most wouldn't even notice BS from a candidate. In fact, it might even be counter-productive. Science is generally held in such disdain that a politician might even gain votes by taking on a macho "I'm not going to listen to you" stance.

Sad but true.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

19. Comment #75599 by flyingscot on October 3, 2007 at 5:44 am

A wonderful idea, knowledge is a good thing.

Mind you if I remember correctly Margaret Thatcher was a Chemistry graduate before becoming a lawyer so she definitely understood the scientific method but not all her policies were welcomed by the British electorate.

Other Comments by flyingscot

20. Comment #75602 by Philip1978 on October 3, 2007 at 5:57 am

hungarianelephant

Imagine if you will, a complete thicky when it comes to science arrives on this website where he encounters a wealth of scientific knowledge by which after asking a few questions here and there slowly begins to learn more. It gets to the point where some of it gets through and he feels less of a thicky and better off because of it. If you hadnt guessed it already, this character is me!

There is hope in my opinion that if the silly sods in power understood even a modicum of science it would aid their decision making slightly.

Then again they are a bunch of manipulative, power hungry slimy bastards... bad idea! I think I prefer your "I'm not going to listen to you" explanation at least you know where they stand on it! Tickets to Stockport in the post! hehehehe

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

21. Comment #75603 by Matt7895 on October 3, 2007 at 5:59 am

Matthew Chapman, I couldn't agree more.

The trouble is, when asked questions relating to evolution, after denying it the candidates also say 'I don't see why that will make me a better or worse President'. We must quash this silly notion before we have them take part in scientific debates.

Other Comments by Matt7895

22. Comment #75606 by savroD on October 3, 2007 at 6:00 am

GREAT IDEA!

Other Comments by savroD

23. Comment #75609 by hungarianelephant on October 3, 2007 at 6:09 am

Philip

(1) You, sir, are demonstrably not a thicky, complete or otherwise.

(2) I couldn't agree more about the wealth of scientific expertise on this site. I learn loads here, & the best scientific posters are also very approachable and eager to help, rather than concerned with showing off their vastly superior knowledge. It would be great if politicians were forced to spend some time here. Unfortunately, you can bet that is not what would happen in a debate. There'd be a few soundbites on topical issues, and a lot of waffle. Cynical, moi?

(3) Accordingly I have decided to award you second prize in my bet, which is of course two season tickets to Stockport County.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

24. Comment #75624 by gcdavis on October 3, 2007 at 6:41 am

Other Comments by gcdavis

25. Comment #75625 by gcdavis on October 3, 2007 at 6:41 am

As there is absolutely no chance of this event taking place may I suggest some alternative shows that may suit the presidential candidates better.

Desperate Candidates
The power outage is also eventful for Hilary and Barack. It traps them in an elevator and she decides to "seize the moment" and talks him into some steamy elevator sex. He's worried they'll be caught, but they're able to dress barely when the elevator starts moving again. They don't realize they were caught on the building's security camera.

Lost (Cause)
A man awakes in a jungle. He is bruised and bloody, and doesn't know where he is. He forces himself up and winces in pain, leaning against a tree. After the initial shock of the crash has settled a little, Dennis Kucinich digs through the scattered luggage and finds a sewing kit.

Super Nanny
With four kids under four, this Superdad needs Supernanny. While he's a funny character for outsiders to laugh at, three-year-old son Mit's antics aren't humorous for his dad, Rudy.

Ugly John (McCain)
John's life is in chaos after a series of very unfortunate events in Arizona, but despite all that's happened, he's still in denial about one thing how much George's departure has affected him. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee turns to junk food and to Fred Thompson in dealing with the revelation that Tom Tancredo was his real mother.

Candidates Wife Swap
For the Biden family from Delaware, life revolves around the household's canine "royalty." Spending over $100,000 a year on her 100 pups, dog breeder Jill dedicates almost all of her time to her dogs, while treating husband, Joe, and son, Robert, like second class citizens.

Other Comments by gcdavis

26. Comment #75630 by Philip1978 on October 3, 2007 at 6:58 am

hungarianelephant

I thank you for your kind words and offer of Stockport County Tickets, I am glad their defeat to Morecambe did not deter the lads from thrashing Brentford the other day! (Please be nice to Wycombe, that's where I was born!)

I totally agree with you, if the politicians behaved as well as some of the scientists on here, flippin heck it would be a better place!

Cheers,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

27. Comment #75639 by PeterK on October 3, 2007 at 7:35 am

Great idea, but there sadly just aren't enough Americans who think this is an important enough issue to make this fly. And great Scott, can you imagine how the FOX news executives would react if they saw this proposal on their desk?
-------------------------------------------------
..and something from the article that just DRIVES me because I see it everywhere!

"....but an RSVP in the negative would beg the question: why on earth would a candidate turn his back on the opportunity to learn more about science?"

For God sakes man, it's "Would lead one to ask" NOT "Beg the question"!

( No further explanation needed in this forum )

I just put this in the same file of language abuse as:

"I could care less"

and

"irregardless"


Other Comments by PeterK

28. Comment #75654 by _J_ on October 3, 2007 at 8:10 am

hungarianelephant

Sorry, _J_, but I think that's wishful thinking.

Oh, I totally agree! This programme's not going to happen, in any form.

[...] not one voter in 100 could give you a reasonable explanation of the scientific method.

Again, I'm with you, there. That's why I think that such a programme (were it, improbably, to be made) would have to deliberately find ways of explaining what the scientific method is and why it's important that politicians should listen to scientists (like brainsys pointed out, this is the real point, rather than that they should already know any science). You'd want viewers to finish the show thinking 'Gosh, I didn't know science worked like that' and 'Now I see why people are always making such a big deal stem cell research', rather than 'Obama totally whupped Dodd's ass'. Otherwise, I completely agree that the whole thing would do little more than trivialise the issue, turning science into a sort of fun TV game that politicians could have a shot at if they felt like it, and stick their fingers up at otherwise.

I see you're sending the County tickets to Philip1978, so I'm safe. Still, I could probably find a market for them, as the stadium's only about three miles away. (Now, if you've got Sale Sharks tickets, that might be worth a go...)

Other Comments by _J_

29. Comment #75662 by Vendetta on October 3, 2007 at 8:35 am

If only! Sadly, nothing like this will ever happen. Especially when so many in this backward country think that religion & 'values' = good, while science & evolution = bad.

It's nice to daydream occasionally, though.

Other Comments by Vendetta

30. Comment #75664 by scooternyc on October 3, 2007 at 8:41 am

I like this idea. I don't expect any politician to know tons of science, but to understand what the difference is between "theory" and "hypothesis"; to understand falsifiability; to understand the objective nature of science; to understand how something is falsified - these are worth exploring.

A person who is unable to think clearly on a subject and argue the merits objectively and with only a secular position in politics, is someone we should be very wary of, indeed. To do otherwise is to disenfranchise an enormous portion of the population.

Other Comments by scooternyc

31. Comment #75665 by hungarianelephant on October 3, 2007 at 8:41 am

I tend to agree with you, _J_, and brainsys that the method is the real point. Maybe we could persuade someone like Dara O'Briain, who has a background in theoretical physics, to do a populist, light-hearted documentary on it (with the best will in the world, RD will continue to be Channel 4 material for the foreseeable future). And then let him loose on the politicians.

Sadly my reliable source of Sharks tickets dried up as soon as they started winning games – though nowadays I get to watch the Leinster scrum going backwards. I think you posted on another thread that you worked in Stockport. Quite why Philip knows so much about the County is a perplexing question ...

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

32. Comment #75668 by captain underpants on October 3, 2007 at 8:50 am

10. Comment by Steve Wrathall

The deep green religion it represents is a greater threat to rationalism than theism.

The phrase "breathtaking inanity" comes to mind. Having religious loonies butting in here is bad enough without having to contend with global warming denialists as well. Please refrain from commenting on climate change issues until such time as you have read and understood this:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

Other Comments by captain underpants

33. Comment #75676 by scooternyc on October 3, 2007 at 9:43 am

I was under the impression that ALL voices were heard:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Other Comments by scooternyc

34. Comment #75684 by Teratornis on October 3, 2007 at 10:28 am

In reply to comment #75549 by Steve Wrathall:

"Through industrial pollution, the destruction of our rain forests, over-fishing, over-hunting and so on, we can destroy just about all life on earth."

This statement is as daft as anything the 3 creationist presedential hopefuls could come up with. No-one has ever come up with a scientifically credible mechanism wherby these could cause the destruction of " just about all life on earth." Managable regional problems, yes.

The phrase "just about all life on earth" is somewhat vague. I assume the author refers to "just about all large wild animals, and non-cultivated plants." Obviously, a lot of microbial life appears capable of surviving almost any event up to a catastrophic impact with an asteroid massive enough to melt the earth's crust to a depth of ten miles around the world. And that's a lot of "life," but not the kind that makes for interesting shows on Animal Planet.

The future of wild multicellular animals and plants looks pretty grim as long as human population continues to grow, forcing humans to appropriate an ever larger fraction of net primary productivity. (That's the mechanism that matters - each time a human gets added to the population, a little more of net primary productivity has to get diverted from sustaining a comparable mass of wild animal life to feed the human.) Only a small fraction of animals have proven adept at adapting to living around humans, and even they will eventually find less to eat as urban sprawl cuts into and paves over wildlife habitat.

Also bear in mind that the human population currently relies on an unsustainable squandering of fossil fuels. Once Peak Oil arrives and passes, it's not clear that technology will find replacements soon enough, to maintain the high agricultural yields that cheap oil input allows. The resulting food shortages in backward nations with exploding human populations will increase hunting pressure on wild animals (and this already occurs in Africa as the bushmeat trade).

The deep green religion it represents is a greater threat to rationalism than theism. Creationism has been successfully excluded from all modern state curricula in developed nations. The most extreme environmentalist propaganda (e.g. Al Gore's sci-fi horror movie) permeates education, including teacher education.

That's because modern science has been convinced by the available evidence that creationism is untenable, whereas the evidence for climate change is undeniable. The only debate is about how much of climate change is anthropogenic, and what will be the outcome of mankind's great unwitting global experiment.

The "deep green religion" doesn't strike me as a threat. The great historic trend in technology is always toward higher efficiency, by identifying and eliminating instances of wasted effort. Effort is wasted when it is not necessary for achieving the ultimate goal, which in the case of business is to create and sell products that people want to buy.

Fossil fuel prices are going to increase no matter what, so it hardly hurts anything for governments to increase the use taxes on fossil fuels now, to push economies to begin adapting while there is still time to do it gracefully. Even if we already knew what energy sources could replace petroleum (and we don't know), along with changes in work and personal habits that will eliminate unnecessary energy consumption, it would take 30 years to rebuild all the infrastructure for it, and for everybody to adjust their habits. The free market is not smart enough to account for that time requirement, which is to say that by the time petroleum runs seriously short and prices really skyrocket, the economy may be unable to rebuild everything fast enough to move onto the replacements (whatever they are going to be).

Returning to the principle of ever-increasing efficiency, consider all the information workers who climb into their gaswasters each morning and pump billions of dollars into the Islamic terrorist breeding grounds of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc., just to shuttle their brains to physical offices and park them in front of computer screens, punctuated by wasted time in meetings that they could better spend by collaboratively editing on corporate wikis. There is no fundamental need to move billions of tons of metal back and forth each day simply to move information. Anyone whose job does not involve getting dirty could do that job without having to move. Instead we can use information technology to move the work to the people, effectively using computer networks as extensions of the human nervous system. (Currently, physical travel is desirable because it allows people to bring their sensory organs directly to bear on problems. We need technology that effectively lengthens our sensory nerves.)

This transformation is already well underway; the primary barrier is not one of technology, but mindless tradition. Our current business customs originated in primitive times when the only way to communicate effectively was to travel. And we are paying a staggering price to preserve that custom beyond its period of usefulness.

As an example of a superior way to manage information workers, see Wikipedia, perhaps the largest and most successful volunteer collaborative project in history. What Wikipedia has built has value, complexity, and functional power to rival just about anything built by any corporation, yet the vast bulk of the effort did not require anyone to physically cart their body off to a distant workplace. Wikipedia's users have documented all of Wikipedia's internal policies, guidelines, and procedures in such detail that anyone who can connect to the Internet, and then read and follow instructions, can begin contributing immediately.

Wikipedia does not have to pay its volunteers to contribute millions of hours of skilled labor, because Wikipedia's design is so efficiently brilliant that it transforms work into fun.

This is obviously the future model of business, to unchain work from Hubbert's Curve and tie it instead to Moore's Law - doing ever more with ever less. The result will be less violence on our highways (which currently dwarfs the violence of terrorism - in the U.S. alone, transportation violence is like another 9/11 every month) and happier workers.

I do find it somewhat perplexing, perhaps even deplorable that Al Gore himself persists in his destructive high-carbon-footprint habit of jetting around the world simply to share information, despite his work in both the climate change arena and in promoting the Internet. It's as if he doesn't grasp the connecting implications of his two pet causes.

Fortunately, the younger generation shows faint glimmers of possibly getting it. And we have Wikipedia (along with thousands of other public wikis) to show us the way.

Other Comments by Teratornis

35. Comment #75694 by DuckPhup on October 3, 2007 at 10:58 am

Great idea... except for the venue. I think that the whole affair should be conducted by Jay Leno, using his 'Jay-Walking' format... except that after each question, the answer should be critiqued by an logician (to address logical fallacies) AND an appropriate scientist. A typical 'debate'-type format would skew the results, because candidates might benefit from the answers of the others.

On second thought, it might be a good idea to have at least PART of the affair in the conventional format... AFTER the 'Jay-Walking' segment. Why? Well, I'd just LOVE to see THIS question asked and answered:

Senator Brownback... as President, what steps would you take to advance the fundamentalist Christian 'dominionist' agenda, that being to overthrow the Bill of Rights and turn the USA into a theocracy, based on Old Testament biblical law?

Followup question: So, Senator... would you use the 'bully pulpit' to explain to the Americal people how our country is ordained by scripture to take the lead in establishing a Kingdom of God here on earth, and facilitating the conditions that are prophesied to precede the return of Our Lord Jesus, the destruction of humanity, and the establishment of His new Kingdom here on earth?

Other Comments by DuckPhup

36. Comment #75701 by Rieux on October 3, 2007 at 11:26 am

To quote entomologist Edward O. Wilson, human beings are "the first species in the history of life to become a geophysical force."

This is a bit of an aside, but what about the Oxygen Catastrophe (http://tinyurl.com/2ejnlz )? Around 2.4 billion years ago, weren't the species that belched out planet-changing amounts of oxygen acting as "a geophysical force" (and engaging in environmental degredation) to at least the same extent as homo sapiens is now?

Other Comments by Rieux

37. Comment #75712 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Of course, if the Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan or Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons, we will have an environmental crisis that will be a whole lot worse, very, very quickly.

Well I dunno. The global cooling resulting from all the atmospheric fall out might help slow global warming...

I joke!

A "science debate" might be cool. I'd only do it with two or three candidates, each given plenty of time to answer. The parade of soundbites is a bad format for science.

In any debate people can ask things like "Some say hydrogen cars aren't practical, because it takes more energy to create the hydrogen than you get back when you burn it. What do you think?" People can ask about ethanol, global warming, energy subsidies, ways to inspire kids about science, etc. I'd ask why the science advisory panel to the energy department was shut down last year.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

38. Comment #75736 by steveroot on October 3, 2007 at 2:15 pm

10. Comment #75549 by Steve Wrathall on October 3, 2007 at 1:35 am
The deep green religion it represents is a greater threat to rationalism than theism. Creationism has been successfully excluded from all modern state curricula in developed nations. The most extreme environmentalist propaganda (e.g. Al Gore's sci-fi horror movie) permeates education, including teacher education.

You like your Hummer, do you?
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

39. Comment #75779 by Vendetta on October 3, 2007 at 3:55 pm

All Hummers aren't bad, as long as you're talking about the kind that Clinton received and not the vehicle :)

Other Comments by Vendetta

40. Comment #75781 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Around 2.4 billion years ago, weren't the species that belched out planet-changing amounts of oxygen acting as "a geophysical force" (and engaging in environmental degredation) to at least the same extent as homo sapiens is now?

Yes. If that was a true quote from E O Wilson, then he is wrong. Life has always been a geophysical force.

Other Comments by steve99

41. Comment #75785 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Hey kids,

Dawkins live debate 8-10 pm tonight EST at THIS LINK

Other Comments by Dr Benway

42. Comment #75788 by Goatsbane J on October 3, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Ah, 8-10. Ta, Dr B. Here I am, quarter past midnight BST, thinking that it was on at 7.00 EST: ie, now. Consequently, I have heard several minutes of preaching about how to be good parents of married children. Oh, well. I have at least learned that Jesus is the Prince of Peace.

Bollocks. Need to sleep.

Other Comments by Goatsbane J

43. Comment #75792 by Steve Wrathall on October 3, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Captain Underpants wrote:
"Having religious loonies butting in here is bad enough without having to contend with global warming denialists as well."

So let me get this straight. The IPCC predicts +2 deg C in a century. Nonetheless its respectable to take seriously Al Gore's 20 deg C rise (what would be required to melt Antarctica)

Then why does believing in a 0 deg C or negligible rise (World has cooled since '98) make me a whacked out "denier". Isn't zero many standard deviations closer to 2 than 20?

Other Comments by Steve Wrathall

44. Comment #75793 by steveroot on October 3, 2007 at 4:27 pm

40. Comment #75779 by Vendetta on October 3, 2007 at 3:55 pm
All Hummers aren't bad, as long as you're talking about the kind that Clinton received and not the vehicle :)

I saw a photo of a Hummer with the license plate: "GIVE ME A" :-)
See any image of the back of an H2 to visualize that!

BTW, you should say, "Not all Hummers are bad", rather than "All Hummers aren't bad" though, in the context of your remark, the latter works pretty well!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

45. Comment #75794 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Yes J. That preacher used a tone that conveys, "Listen up: what I'm about to say is shockingly wise and life transforming." But the content was a string of trite banalities. "Parents, you can set limits on how much you spend on the wedding."

At least the Catholic priests didn't work so hard to keep you from falling asleep IIRC.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

46. Comment #75796 by Goatsbane J on October 3, 2007 at 4:37 pm

It's true, Dr B. They're all doing it, in fact.

It's funny. My first, rather nostalgic and naive, reaction was to think 'Really, they say a lot of decent stuff, don't they?'

But then it struck me how bloody easy it is to say extraordinarily obvious things about getting along nicely with people. The achievements are only in being an engaging speaker and in making anyone believe that the bible actually contains what you're making it out to.

The makers of The Simpsons manage to provide at least equally profound insights into humanity on a weekly basis, whilst being a whole lot funnier, less didactic and without resorting to the authority of imaginary gods.

So that little flash of respect didn't last long.

EDIT Oh god. The current preacher (who is doing comical stereotypical-televangelist inhalations before his mad shoutings) is doing the classic 'God is love, so all love is God' bit of morally fucked-up bullshit. I'm going to have angry dreams.

Other Comments by Goatsbane J

47. Comment #75798 by Steve Wrathall on October 3, 2007 at 4:49 pm

dvespertilio wrote:
"Excuse me, but E. O Wilson is one of the most respected environmental scientists alive..."

Invalid argument of authority.
Plus the quote : [Through industrial pollution, the destruction of our rain forests, over-fishing, over-hunting and so on, we can destroy just about all life on earth] is Chapman's, not Wilson's. Check the article.

"We are facing, indeed, are already in, an environmental crisis of epoch proportions."

I think you mean Epic, as in Hollywood Blockbuster

"the Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan or Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons, we will have an environmental crisis that will be a whole lot worse, very, very quickly. Wouldn't rational people be calling for world wide nuclear disarmament about right now. And, gee whiz, THEY HAVE BEEN FOR SOME TIME. "

You half admit that the problem is not nuclear weapons, but who has them. The solution is therefore not world wide nuclear disarmament, but stopping thug regimes getting them. Instead we pay protection money to the North Koreans in return for promises not to build them. And they build them anyway!! Did the world learn nothing from the appeasement of Hilter: Sacrifice real security in return for an odious dictatorship's empty promises. And now we're letting Iran play exactly the same game.

Other Comments by Steve Wrathall

48. Comment #75800 by bluebird on October 3, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Per the idea of a 'scientific debate'~~
Mr. Chapman suggests it be held at the A M of N H; N.DeG.Tyson would be a great moderator/host, and he's already there (director of H.P.). Here's hoping Mr. Chapman's idea comes to fruition.
http://www.research.amnh.org/~tyson/



Other Comments by bluebird

49. Comment #75805 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 5:09 pm

So let me get this straight. The IPCC predicts +2 deg C in a century. Nonetheless its respectable to take seriously Al Gore's 20 deg C rise (what would be required to melt Antarctica)

Let's at least try and understand some science, can we? The +2 deg C in a century is a mean global value. That is entirely consistent with much higher rises at the poles (which we are actually observing happening right now), and rapid melting of polar ice (which we are actually observing happening right now).

Other Comments by steve99

50. Comment #75836 by spellvexit on October 3, 2007 at 7:50 pm

There's a verifiable claim here. Everyone is welcome to check if George Bush Jr is a moron.

Other Comments by spellvexit