ScienceDebate 2008 update

I just received this update from the ScienceDebate 2008 team:

...after declining our invitation to debate science in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton yesterday agreed to attend "The Compassion Forum," a forum of "wide-ranging and probing discussions of policies related to moral issues." CNN will serve as the exclusive broadcaster of the "presidential-candidate forum on faith, values and other current issues" at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., April 13 at 8 p.m. You can read more here.

Perhaps among the moral issues discussed should be whether they have a moral obligation to more fully engage on science issues, since the future viability of the planet may hang in the balance, for starters. Is there a larger moral imperative? How about the future economic health of the United States and the prosperity of its families? Science & engineering have driven half our economic growth since WWII, yet but 2010 if trends hold 90% of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia. Then there are the moral questions surrounding the health of our families with stem cell research, genomics, health insurance policy, and medical research. There's biodiversity loss and the health of the oceans and the morality of balancing destruction of species against human needs and expenses, there's population and development and clean energy research, there's food supply and GMO crops and educating children to compete in the new global economy and securing competitive jobs. Science issues are moral issues.

I would encourage you to write letters to the editor, emails to the campaigns, and blog postings pointing this out. And if you can, support our ongoing effort to turn this country around.

I second these comments - I find it incredibly disturbing that the candidates are more than happy to debate their relative positions on fairy tales, yet refuse to engage the public in meaningful debate on the future of the country's pre-eminent position in science and technology, which will be critical as we move deeper into the new century.

Religion, Obama and McCain

Religion is once again rearing it's ugly head in American politics. Barack Obama has been forced to distance himself from the words of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. It's possible that it may be enough of a "scandal" to ensure Hillary Clinton's victory in the democratic race for President. And that's sad.

The culture here in the US is one where even the slightest whiff of scandal can drag down even the best candidates. We have to stop focusing on minor issues - here, it's what someone close to a campaign (not the candidate, note) said a few years ago that is controversial. We need to be listening to the candidate's views on the big issues of the day - the economy, the war for example, rather than the scandal of the day.

It's worth noting that associating with anyone religious can get you into this kind of trouble. If it's not Obama, it's McCain with John Hagee, who has preached that Hurricane Katrina was the result of God's wrath against gay people, and that he's happy about the Iraq war because it will hasten Armageddon. And McCain is "proud" to have his support.

Candidates are caught in a quandary. They need to pander to the religious nuts, but come off just looking stupid. They have to decide whether stupidity will get them more votes than rationalism. Unfortunately, it looks like it does.

Score one for the good guys

Actually, score two.

Not only did Mike Huckabee finally bow out of the race for President last night (so I won't have to move to Canada), but a creationist was defeated for a spot on the Texas school board also. Barney Maddox, an avowed creationist, would have tilted the board of education towards insanity (see Time for more details), but his challenge was held off by the moderate incumbent, Patricia Hardy, according to the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

Social conservatives failed in their attempt to take control of the State Board of Education on Tuesday when incumbent Pat Hardy of Fort Worth retained her seat against a challenge from Cleburne's Barney Maddox.

Hardy, a career educator, has been a moderate voice on the board. The 15-member body still shows a close ideological split, but Hardy has helped keep it on a straight path.

Maddox's entry in the race had set the stage for debate over the scientific theory of evolution, which he has described as "fairy tales." Hardy took a better course: Teach kids about all theories, she said, from creation to evolution, and give them enough information to make up their own minds about what to believe.

She's wrong about teaching all theories especially where one has no evidence to back it up and one has the full support of the entire scientific community, but it does preserve the teaching of evolution in the state, which had been under fire, and it's better than the alternative.

ScienceDebate 2008 update

I've blogged about ScienceDebate2008 before - it's an opportunity for the presidential candidates to let the country know what their science policies would be as President. Well, the invites have gone out!

Science and technology are responsible for half our nation's growth in GDP over the last half century, and have changed every aspect of our lives, our economy, our health, and our environment.

The next president of the United States will face unprecedented scientific and technological policy challenges and opportunities, three classes of which poll at the top of voter concerns: the economy and economic competitiveness; healthcare; and the environment. Candidates should have ideas about what kinds of policies will best address these issues, and should inform the voters of their views.

There's been no response from the campaigns yet (Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee were invited), so make sure you contact your representatives, or the campaigns themselves to urge them to attend.

Please no...

I know it's unlikely, but stranger things have happened, especially here.

If Mike Huckabee wins the presidency, I'm moving to Canada.

Someone needs to stop Huckabee...

...for the sake of the country.

Here's the latest words of wisdom from the Baptist minister posing as a sensible candidate for the presidency:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Oh my.

Looks like stoning will be making a comeback under President Huckabee.

If you think a Huckabee presidency is unlikely - two words:

George Bush.

Twice.

(OK, that's three, but you get my point).

Global Warming, Religion and Politics...

..all wrapped up in a neat package (It is Christmas, after all!):

Science debate 2008

Given all the inanity that has gone on around belief, the bible and evolution in the presidential debates recently, it seems the time has come for a debate on science policy. It is this that will enable us to look forward as a nation and not backward to the days of myth, fairy tales and legend, which is what most of the candidates seem to want to base national policy on.

With this end in mind, a group of key Americans, including scientists and congressmen have called for a debate on science.

Their mission:

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.

I don't hold out much hope of the debate being held, since most of the candidates are ignorant of science, but you can add your voice to the crowd here.

Who believes this stuff....I mean, really?

Today was another day where you just have to shake your head and wonder what most of the American public is smoking.

First up we had a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who seems to be a relatively reasonable guy as far as Republican candidates go, trying to twist himself into a pretzel (again) to pander to the religious nutjob right, for whom Mormonism is an even wackier faith than theirs, if you can believe that. Here's what he had to say:

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom."

Really? Freedom requires religion? since when? Europe seems to be doing pretty well without relying on religion. Religion requires freedom? Huh. I'm sure the folks in Iran or Saudi Arabia agree with that completely.

There's a nice rebuttal to all of this crap in the Washington Post editorial:

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government," Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal."

Speaking of the election, Romney is trying to counter Mike Huckabee, who, as a baptist minister is not shy about promoting his religion. Fred Thompson has also weighed in:

"I'm OK with the Lord, and the Lord is OK with me, as far as I can tell."

Great. So now another Republican talks to imaginary beings. That's another one crossed off my list. Look, it's one thing to pander to your base to get elected, it's quite another to be so desperate, unsubtle and to frankly look a little crazy while doing it.

This is sad....

The Yangtze River Dolphin may be extinct, according to Samuel Turvey, a conservation biologist at the Zoological Society of London, who took part in the latest, intensive six week search of the freshwater dolphin's native range in the Yangtze River in China that failed to find any evidence for the baiji for the first time:

He said the dolphin's demise -- which resulted from overfishing, pollution and lack of intervention -- might serve as a cautionary tale and should spur governments and scientists to act to save other species verging on extinction.

"Ours is the first scientific study which didn't find any," he said in a telephone interview. "Even if there are a few left we can't find them and we can't do anything to stop their extinction."

This is the first major cetacean species to go extinct directly at human hands, despite significant publicity over the years. Tellingly, the fate of Lindsay Lohan has gotten more play in the media over the last couple of weeks than the poor baiji.

God and Voting

Here we go again. An article in yesterday's New York Times shows US voter's reactions to candidates with certain traits, and whether they would be more or less likely to vote for them. As usual, atheists rank dead last, with 63% less likely to vote for someone who doesn't believe in God.(click for larger version)

This puts us behind groups like homosexuals, muslims, drug users and adulterers.

What's really interesting, is that 3% are more likely to vote for someone who has no college education, so apparently really don't want to see educated people running the country. My guess is that they'd be voting for Christians too.

Do as I say.....

.....not do as I do apparently. According to CNN, three protesters disrupted a prayer by a Hindu chaplain Thursday at the opening of a Senate hearing, calling it an abomination and shouting slogans about Jesus Christ:

Religious figures from various faiths have said the prayer, which is normally recited by a Christian chaplain.

Barry Lynn, executive director of religious watchdog group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest showed the intolerance of the "religious right."

"I don't think the Senate should open with prayers, but if it's going to happen, the invocations ought to reflect the diversity of the American people," Lynn said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had invited Zed.

Here's a video of the incident:

I don't think there should be prayers of any kind before the Senate, but this act by some of the religious right shows just how hypocritical their point of view is. Apparently, bringing religion into everyday life (schools, politics etc.) is fine, as long as it's their religion, and anyone who has a differing viewpoint or religion should be shouted down.

Science Idol: The Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest

The Union of Concerned Scientists is running a contest to find the cartoon that best demonstrates political interference in science. You can vote for your favorites here. Here's my favorite of the 12:The reason behind this contest is:

Recent investigations and surveys show that the censorship, manipulation, and suppression of federal government science has become pervasive in recent years. Political interference in science has hurt our air quality, allowed FDA approval of harmful drugs, and prevented the public from hearing the truth about global warming.

This spring, creative minds throughout America took the opportunity to show off their artistic and comedic talents in support of independent science by entering the 2nd annual Science Idol: the Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest. We received hundreds of compelling cartoons and our panel of celebrity judges helped narrow those entries to 12 great finalists.

So vote! You have until July 23rd!

Science and Religion in America

I found an interesting post over at Marginal Utility last week, dissecting data from the General Social Survey about belief in science among Americans. In the post, scientific knowledge is broken down by religion, on a range of "controversial" (in the sense that deniers don't want to believe the evidence) scientific subjects. For example, here's the one on evolution:What it clearly shows is that as religious belief become less fundamentalist, scientific understanding grows. Much of this may be due to the lower schooling standards in the parts of the country where fundamentalist protestantism is ascendant, and it points up the growing divide in the U.S. regarding science and reason on one hand, and religion on the other.
As an aside, I recently saw a review of an interesting new book "Deer Hunting with Jesus" by Joe Bageant:

From the Amazon review:

After thirty years spent scratching together a middle-class life out of a “dirt-poor” childhood, Joe Bageant moved back to his hometown of Winchester, Virginia, where he realized that his family and neighbors were the very people who carried George W. Bush to victory. That was ironic, because Winchester, like countless American small towns, is fast becoming the bedrock of a permanent underclass. Two in five of the people in his old neighborhood do not have high school diplomas. Nearly everyone over fifty has serious health problems, and many have no health care. Credit ratings are low or nonexistent, and alcohol, overeating, and Jesus are the preferred avenues of escape.

I think that description applies here - poor families with no education and no future are the backbone of the fundamentalist faith, so it's no surprise to see results like these.

Even more astounding, only 40% of fundamentalist protestants believe the Earth orbits the sun in one year. That's less than half. Frankly, I think this may invalidate most of the rest of the data, because even for those with no religious affiliation, the numbers are only around 60%, which clearly indicates to me that most Americans are unqualified to answer questions on any scientific topic. It does however seem to me that on the whole, those people categorized as having no religious affiliation, or those who are jewish or catholic, are more highly educated and open to scientific reason than fundamentalist protestants.

Religious Tests...

According to the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, section 3 states that:

...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

It doesn't seem like it though, does it? - especially when the Republican candidates were asked about their religious beliefs again in their debate last night. A few quotes (from CNN):

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth,"
"A person either believes that God created the process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own."
"If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it."

That's from Mike Huckabee, a baptist minister, so it's about what we'd expect. He follows up with a claim that his ignorance of science isn't a problem though:

"I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States."

Exactly. If he doesn't believe, or want to believe, the scientific consensus on evolution, what will he believe the scientific consensus on? Global warming? gravity? I don't think we want someone in the oval office who doesn't listen to reason. We know how that works out.
McCain wasn't much better. He was backpedaling so fast on evolution, his legs must hurt:

"I admire [Huckabee's] description, because I hold that view. There's no doubt in my mind that the hand of God was in what we are today. And I do believe that we are unique, and [I] believe that God loves us."

With all the god-love going on in this debate, and in the Democrat's forum on faith, values and poverty you have to wonder what office they're all running for - Pope?

Only in America. In the UK, Tony Blair has acknowledged his deep faith, but has never, as far as I know, highlighted it in a campaign or as part of public policy debates. That's how it should be.

Why are we discussing belief in magic sky fairies when we should be addressing issues of far greater national importance?

Draft Gore

If he would just decide to run, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. Who? Al Gore. That's right, Al Gore. Not only is he actively, passionately trying to communicate the dangers of global warming across the world, but it seems he's the only voice of reason left in US politics. In an passage from his new book "The Assault on Reason", excerpted in Time, Gore writes:

"Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?" The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of massive and well-understood evidence to the contrary, seems to many Americans to have reached levels that were previously unimaginable.

And:

We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

Gore is right. We've got to get rid of pseudoscience and religion from politics. We've got to launch a new Age of Reason. Draft Gore in 2008!

Republican Debate

Nice to see most of the Republican field came down on the side of rationality last night, despite what must have been overwhelming pressure to pander to their religious nut-job base. John McCain was asked whether he believed in evolution (the entire transcript is here):

MR. VANDEHEI: Senator McCain, this comes from a Politico.com reader and was among the top vote-getters in our early rounds. They want a yes or on. Do you believe in evolution?

SEN. MCCAIN: Yes.

MR. VANDEHEI: I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree -- believe in evolution?

(Senator Brownback, Mr. Huckabee, Representative Tancredo raise their hands.)

SEN. MCCAIN: May I -- may I just add to that?

MR. VANDEHEI: Sure.

SEN. MCCAIN: I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.

Update: Here's a link to the video of the exchange (at Crooks and Liars)

I think it's a pretty good sign when most of the candidates, despite potentially alienating their base vote, came down on the side of science, although McCain was clearly nervous about it - hence his lame "but I still believe in God!!" response when he felt that the answer might not go over well with the religious right.

For the others, I wonder just how deeply they've studied the evidence. Not very, would be my guess. You'd have gotten the same response from them if the debate was in 1407, not 2007. It's called progress, people.

Unbelievable.