Comments on: 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

By: mark

mark — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:21:45 +0000

Yesterday I heard on the radio John McCain saying how he thought global warming was a seriously important issue and action must been taken very soon. However, he’s trying to avoid completely estranging his base by suggesting that the free-market can come up with solutions.I don’t expect the candidates to speak on scientific issues as scientists, but what they have to say about those issues can be quite revealing. Like how Hillary Clinton said she would just ignore all those economists who say a “gasoline-tax holiday” would not be helpful; if I hear a candidate say “evolution is only a theory” I know that candidate does not have or does not listen to a science adviser. If they don’t wish to debate science issues, I think it is for 2 reasons: they prefer to pander to scientifically illiterate voters and they are unsure of the science (because of not having advisers already on the job) and are afraid of sounding like fools.

By: (((BIlly)))

(((BIlly))) — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:54:29 +0000

Keep in mind that about half of the people who want a debate about science by the Presedential candidates are looking for a candidate to affirm their narrow-minded theocentric beliefs in creationism and a young earth.

By: jim

jim — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:17:54 +0000

I agree with Zach. In addition, I think they are probably very ignorant about science. (both parties) It is a fair debate. The debate could be structured so each candidate could have a science adviser – or more than one, but limited to some maximum. After all I don’t expect them to be versed in technical scientific details, but they should know who to go to and who represents their politiacl point of view.

By: Zach Miller

Zach Miller — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:06:17 +0000

I’ll tell you why they won’t do it: Politics. The second Obama says he believes in global warming, or that ID shouldn’t be taught in our schools, or Hillary says that she likes stem cell research, they will lose HUGE numbers of voters. Granted, these are the people who shouldn’t necessarily BE voting, but there it is. Science polarizes people, the candidates realize that, and I don’t think they want to risk losing any people.

By: Esteleth

Esteleth — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:35:39 +0000

This may seem like a silly question, but, why won’t the candidates agree to this? Have any of them given a reason why? Seeing how this idea has overwhelming support, you’d think the candidates would be all over this. Yet they aren’t, and I do not understand why.