1. Comment #96547 by jdb on December 10, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Signed. I hope it happens... but how can we expect politicians, at least some of whom think that the truth of evolution is determined by vote, to get up and debate the importance of science?

Other Comments by jdb

2. Comment #96620 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 7:06 pm

I would be in favor of this if the format of the debate included a number of well-known scientists in various fields who would be responsible for correcting each politician every time they said something regarding science that was ignorant or untrue. Of course this would mean the scientists would be doing most of the talking. I guess that wouldn't be a bad thing ;)

Otherwise, it's just another forum for the candi-dolts to spout nonsense and talking points about things they don't understand.

The US constitution stipulates that there can be no "religious test" to be a candidate for political office. However, it has no prohibition against there being any kind of "scientific test". Wouldn't it be great if all candidates actually had to take some kind of science and/or intelligence exam to be eligible for office? "Oh, I see here that you scored moderately well on your SAT, but yet you claim you don't 'believe' in evolution. Next!" Yeah I know...wishful thinking. :)

Other Comments by Don_Quix

3. Comment #96634 by theantitheist on December 10, 2007 at 7:26 pm

This would get huge ratings all over the world and would produce huge revenue in advertising etc. and should be as hungrilly chased by the TV men as the Ricky v Mayweather fight (gutted he lost, but a good fight and a good loser, his "what a flucky shot" line and "this aint no feather tickling contest" preove that and made every one laugh) and the crappy Idol finals and the like.

There's money to be made from it, so make it happen!

Other Comments by theantitheist

4. Comment #96659 by NormanDoering on December 10, 2007 at 7:59 pm

theantitheist wrote:

This would get huge ratings all over the world ...

Was that supposed to be satire? Or are you that delusional about people's interest in science?

I would watch it, I'm interested in which candidates understand science, but your average voter isn't all that interested in science. It bores them. Your average American voter doubts evolution and believes in heaven and hell.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

5. Comment #96662 by notsobad on December 10, 2007 at 8:01 pm

The current administration is a joke when it comes to science.
It's full of people with degrees from Liberty University founded by Jerry Falwell.

Other Comments by notsobad

6. Comment #96713 by Matt H. on December 10, 2007 at 9:09 pm

I'd love to see the Republicans make asses out of themselves like they did the last time they were asked about evolution.

Other Comments by Matt H.

7. Comment #96891 by stephenray on December 11, 2007 at 4:04 am

FAT CHANCE!

You think any of these dummmies is going to sign up for a debate in which they envisage saying "Uh - I don't know..." over and over again for an hour?

Other Comments by stephenray

8. Comment #96923 by notsobad on December 11, 2007 at 5:22 am

The Bush administration is active in science, in fighting against it:

Report Describes Systematic White House Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653

Other Comments by notsobad

9. Comment #96926 by bluebird on December 11, 2007 at 5:35 am

It's a great idea, and sorely needed. However,
if this proposed debate comes to pass, you can knock me over with a feather.

There was a similiar discussion a while back:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1703,A-New-Debate,Matthew-Chapman

Other Comments by bluebird

10. Comment #96955 by nattyadams on December 11, 2007 at 6:49 am

Just to clarify for people: this debate isn't about quizzing candidates about their specific level of scientific knowledge. So there shouldn't be any reason for an "I dunno..." The idea is to find out how science will inform and be affected by their policy. Will they fund stem cell research? Will they take a serious look at climate change? These are the kinds of questions that people expect to be answered.

Other Comments by nattyadams

11. Comment #96997 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 8:27 am

It'd be fun if they got asked some basic questions to test their science literacy:

1. Why is the sky blue?
2. How old is the Earth / Universe?
3. How many genes do we have?
4. What's the half-life of Plutonium?
5. If water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, what's air made of?

Other Comments by Rtambree

12. Comment #97009 by irate_atheist on December 11, 2007 at 9:09 am

If the dumbasses are dumb enough to vote for Bush, they'll vote for any cretin in a sharp suit with a smile. A debate where the intended audience are too ignorant to understand the implications of the answers given, is a pointless debate.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

13. Comment #97011 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 9:14 am

>If the dumbasses are dumb enough to vote for Bush, they'll vote for any cretin in a sharp suit with a smile.

Some even say anti-intellectualism is rife in the American electorate and the selection of politicians reflects that. The dumber the candidates the better.

Intellectuals might be perceived as shifty and threatening. As Julius Caesar said about Cassius... "he thinks too much. Such men are dangerous".

Bush isn't the first half-witted President. Reagan got two terms as well.

I hope it isn't a race to the bottom i.e. each viable candidate and President has to be more stupid than the last in order to be trusted by the electorate.

Other Comments by Rtambree

14. Comment #97038 by Arcturus on December 11, 2007 at 10:17 am

Well, fellow Americans, keep on the same bushy path and China will soon be leading the scientific community.

Good luck!

Other Comments by Arcturus

15. Comment #97056 by Tumara Baap on December 11, 2007 at 10:52 am

I am not interested in a candidate's mastery of scientific findings. (Granted, a lack of rudimentary knowledge would be telling.) Such factoids can be spoon fed to anyone of average intelligence. What matters is the quest for the unknown, the critical thinking, an open mind, a respect for scientific integrity etc that props a scientific culture. In light of reports by science journalists Seth Shulman and Chris Mooney (who document by Republicans unrelenting attacks on institutions that depend on science to do their jobs -NOAA, NASA, EPA, FDA, CDC, FWS, NIH, HHS- and on reason itself, what is it about a candidate that makes them fit for stewardship over the world's most scientifically advanced nation?

For those familiar only with stories that make it on CNN -Dover trial, global warming- I highly recommend the easy to read "Undermining Science" by Seth Shulman. The cancer has metastasized. Few have done more for the march of stupidity than the famously incurious George Bush. In a democracy, the shame is ours to carry.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

16. Comment #97065 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 11:00 am

>What matters is the quest for the unknown, the critical thinking, an open mind, a respect for scientific integrity etc that props a scientific culture

Agreed. I've noticed that the most popular phrase that begins any sentence by a candidate is "I believe..."

Their PR minders must have told them that beginning sentences with "I believe..." shows strength, moral certitude, etc, etc and they can't be pinned down for lying.

The question is... is it the candidates or the electorate? A chicken or egg question? Or are we stuck on some feedback loop that ratchets down the level of IQ desirable in a leader?

Other Comments by Rtambree

17. Comment #97152 by theantitheist on December 11, 2007 at 2:07 pm

theantitheist wrote:

This would get huge ratings all over the world ...

Was that supposed to be satire? Or are you that delusional about people's interest in science?

I would watch it, I'm interested in which candidates understand science, but your average voter isn't all that interested in science. It bores them. Your average American voter doubts evolution and believes in heaven and hell.

Actually no, it wasn't meant to be satire, i am i'm afraid, delusional about peoples interest in Science. I'm fascinated by the stuff and forget that other people arn't. Mind you I did also think it would get huge ratings for the anticipated "oh my gosh did he just say what i thought he said" moments that we all know would occur.

Other Comments by theantitheist

18. Comment #97208 by Rational_G on December 11, 2007 at 6:06 pm

It ain't gonna happen

Other Comments by Rational_G

19. Comment #98048 by rod-the-farmer on December 13, 2007 at 2:56 am

Neat idea, if it ever happens. Maybe it would require a sort of instant vote by each member of a panel of scientists, who would critique the points made by each candidate. Then we can all still listen to the flow of speech, and see an immediate rating of how accurate/scientific their words are judged to be. Let each candidate speak for a fixed number of minutes, and cover as many of the topics then can, from a list provided by the moderator.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer