I don't see why not as long as they're not professing to be experts, knowing that a presidential candidate has a good layman's understanding of scientific matters can only be a plus when it comes to deciding who to vote for.
Got to be careful what is asked for...it might just happen. While having presidential candidates become more familiar with important scientific topics is, of course, a good thing, I suspect spin, rather than content, would reign supreme in an actual debate.
This would be interesting! But I agree with Speedo - there would be entirely too much spin for it to be really meaningful. The candidate, if elected, will conviently "forget" about what they said when it really matters. Sugar
As far as I'm aware, none of them are scientists and only Ron Paul is even a medical doctor. I would be interested in it only insofar as it reveals which of them is actually attempting to fully understand scientific topics as accurately as scientists have. I would expect, however, that it would be a lot of crap where they tell people things like, "There is evidence that global climate change isn't happening," and, "Stem cells are equivalent to aborted babies."
I think the Democrats would overprepare and end up giving too much boring detail while trying to outdo each other. The Republicans would spend too much time making sure they don't piss off their base of denialists. Oh, except for McCain who would only talk about nuclear powerplants. And Huckabee would state for the Nth time that he is running for President, not high school science teacher.
I'd like to see it happen...but there's no way in hell I'm entering my personal information into their website to "support" the process.
Sorry, but I think that watching the current crop of candidates attempt to debate scientific topics would be more painful than watching the horrid video of the little queen screeching "leeeve britttnnneeyy allloooonnnnneee!"
"OK, team. I've got to bone up for the Presidential Science Debate..." "First thing, Huck. It's not called boning up. It's called paleontolgy" "Good work, fellas! But I thought we were against panelolontology or whatever. What's our position on dinosaurs?" "The reason why they aren't in the bible is that everyone didn't think to mention them because they were kept as domestic pets. They were so common nobody thought to write about them. Man and dinosaur lived together in perfect harmony, like in The Flintstones. Dinosaurs are mentioned in Genesis--the ancient Hebrew word for snake is the same as the word for brontosaurus." "I like it. What else?" "Electricity is black magic and electricians are exorcists. The Ark is now a drive-thru Arby's in Casper, Wyoming. And people in hospitals who don't pray never get cured." "Do we have a policy on the law of gravity?" "There's no such thing, because souls ascend into heaven. Planes fly because all the guadian angels of the passengers keep them aloft. Gravity, clearly, has been disproven." "What about the earth's magnetic field? Are we for it or against it?" "We're against it. It's a flip-flopper." "And Einstein?" "We cannot support the General Theory of Relativity. We support the General Theory of Absolutes." "Good! I hate anything that's not black or white." "Never forget, Huck. Science is just a bunch of theories. That means your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's" "Thanks, team. See you after." "Oh Huck...just remember thing." "What's that?" "If you pronounce it new-klee-ar, you're just pandering to the liberal elite."
Maybe it hasn't been reported widely in Europe, but Mike Huckabee stated in one of the republican debates that he didn't believe in Evolution.....
No, they should not participate in a science debate. That would be more painful to watch than when models decide they can act. Am I the only one that remembers seeing Fair Game with Cindy Crawford?
They don't must have a PHD in biology , physics etc but if they know the most important theories and concepts sure, Why not? However I think that is a must that those candidates have some assistance from some experts.
Haha, yes. Thanks for making this a very funny thread. Yes, this is no secret. He was one of the three candidates who claimed not to believe in evolution during one of the CNN/YouTube debates. Within the next few days, he was challenged on this again and explained his position. Here he makes the two great mistakes or oversimplifications that creationists make. First he confuses Evolution as a theory about the origins of the universe (which it is not). Then he frames the argument as a one of either believing in God or believing in Evolution. This places him in the minority of Christians who find a conflict between faith and science. This is no surprise because his denomination believes that the Bible is inerrant and literally true on all matters, including science. At first it sounds almost like he is going towards theistic evolution which is the nuanced position held by most of the Christian denominations (which find no conflict between faith and science). But at the end, he makes it clear that he does not believe humans evolved from primates. Huckabee would be classified as an Old Earth Special Creationist, meaning he accepts the fact that the universe may be billions of years old, but it and all the species were created by a divine act of special creation. His comment about it not being germaine to being President is not quite true. As Governor he worked hard to assert his beliefs on the teaching of science in his state. I have a problem with a President whose beliefs leave him no choice but to reject science in order to preserve his faith in God with that faith being a central component of his life. This inevitably would affect his views on other things such as history, morality, and world events. Otherwise, I actually find Huckabee to be a very intelligent and articulate guy. I would not even place him last in my list of candidates. He is definitely below my threshold of electability, though.
I would love to see Mike Huckabee debate evolution that would be HI-larious! "You see six thousand years ago humans used to be friends with dinosaurs".
Haha. No, actually my fear is that the extremely articulate Huckabee would give some very nuanced creationist answers that would convince most of the American public that you can't believe in both God and science. Huckabee is a very convincing public speaker and comes across as a very trustable, likeable guy.
no - i think they should be subject to scientific experiments first to make sure thier not all brain dead
Perhaps. He does not come across that way to me, but then again, I suffered through part of his governorship in Arkansas. And I still think he looks like a pudgy, wall-eyed Jim Nabors.
