Nature magazine is one of the leading scientific journals in the world. Naturally — ha ha — they wanted to know what the Presidential candidates thought about science. They asked Obama and McCain to answer 18 questions; different ones from the ScienceDebate2008 questions.
Obama’s campaign answered the questions, McCain’s declined. Interpret that as you will.
Among the questions they asked was this:
Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?
Yowza. How did Obama answer the question?
Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny.
Bang! That’s an excellent answer (the only point off is his use of the word believe; evolution is not a belief system, it is fact). There is no room for antiscientific nonsense in the science classroom.
To be helpful, Nature — again, which did not receive any answers from the McCain campaign — posted the opinion McCain expressed in the Republican debates in 2007:
“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.” In 2005, he told the Arizona Daily Star that he thought “all points of view” should be available to students studying the origins of humanity. But the next year a Colorado paper reported him saying that such viewpoints should not be taught in science class.
I’ve heard him say different things at different times, so it’s hard to know where he currently stands on this, but it’s possible that latest bit at the end there is where he is now. If so, then good. There not two different viewpoints here. There is fact, and there is wrong. Evolution is the former, creationism camouflaged as ID is the latter.
The other answers are very interesting as well. Go read them, along with some that were not printed in the magazine but are online. Discuss.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
To be fair concerning Obabma’s use of the word “believe”, I think it’s in no small part due to the way the question is phrased and presented: “Do you believe that evolution…”
I think the rest of his answer adds context that removes any doubt of his support of evolution being a question of faith.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I do think this word ‘believe’ has been hijacked by the religious but PZ has quite a good entry on his blog about not being too pedantic about starting discussions about the use of the word. I tend to agree with the point he makes, although it is a slippery slope. It is time though to reclaim the use of the word believe and disconnect it from the meaning religion has tainted it with.
(In case of mistakes: Yes, I know, you are a spelling fanatic, bite me, English is not my native language! You already burned me during one of your sunday podcasts.)
September 25th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I, myself, am a Christian and think Obama is great. Mainly for the fact that I agree. Science is a thing of it’s own just like Religion is. Saying one is wrong and one is right isn’t a good tactic though. But, I do not think Creationism should be taught as a Science. Cause, it’s not.
Go Obama.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
So McCain is down with evolution, but he also got Palin at his right hand, who is a fundamentalist whacko who believes “both sides” should be taught. Whatever they are.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I am not a Christian, I am an atheist, but I am realistic enough to know that it’s virtually impossible to expect a out-and-out non-theist to win a presidential election any time soon. Ironically I suspect that Obama is much more sincere about his Christian faith than McCain, who probably doesn’t even pay any attention to religion unless he is pressed into it. However, with the selection of Palin as his running mate, McCain has shown that he will do anything, including naked pandering to the religious right, to get elected. Putting someone on the ticket who hasregularly attended three different churches that all belong to the Dominionist “Third Wave” movement, and all that entails (look it up, Republicans) is simply beyond the pale.
I wish Obama had not attempted to reach out to the religious right as he did. He only got a slap in the face for his trouble anyway. But his answer on the evolution question is top-notch, without a trace of pandering in sight. If McCain ever answers the questions, I have no doubt he will hedge his bets. He has to.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I want to give Obama big hugs.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Aw. That’s just fluffy being fluffy.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I am so freaking tired of that pedantic meme. You can believe or disbelieve a fact, people. They are NOT antonyms in any sense.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Everyone seems to miss the point. If Obama “believes in evolution”, how can he reconcile that with his Christian faith? Isn’t that the saying the same thing as McCain when he said, “the hand of God is there also” while hiking the Grand Canyon? Is his going to Church to receive the “Word” on Sundays hypocritical or politically correct? Are you just hearing what you want to hear in the year of elections? I am one of the 19% undecided voters who is trying to see beyond the spin from BOTH candidates.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I hate to be a wet blanket…If you truly value science, THEN FORGET McCAIN!!!!!! Sarah Palin is his answer and thats all I need to know.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
There are multiple definitions of the word “belief,” and it’s worth noting that the word can be used differently in different contexts, and by different people even in the same context. While in the creationism vs. evolution debate we tend to use the word in its first sense according to Merriam-Webster of “to have a firm religious faith” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe), other senses of the word mean things such as “to accept as true” or “to hold an opinion” . These latter two are generally how non-scientists mean it when they use the word, and they’re both perfectly valid ways to describe factual things. I do believe the sky is blue and that the sun will rise tomorrow, after all, and neither of these have anything to do with faith or religion.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Obama 2008!
September 25th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I see nothing wrong with McCain’s answer.
You can think evolution is right and still believe in God. God can be anything you want it to be. The entire concept is broad and undefinable.
McCain 08!
September 25th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Obama’s answer was intelligent. McCain’s answer (the hand of the magic fairy) was childish.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I concur with Nentuaby in this case. I have not yet done the research into evolution that many scientists have done, but I trust them. I believe what they tell me.
In the same vein, I believe that I locked my car. Possibly I am wrong, but the best facts available to me at this point indicate that I did, in fact, lock my car.
And I’m as pedantic as they come.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Nentuaby, I completely agree. While I always say I ACCEPT evolution and always also use that word when asking people whether they accept it or not, I still think it’s kind of silly to act as if the word “believe” was used exclusively for faith-based beliefs. It’s not.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
PS: I also want to hug Obama.
Obama rocks!
September 25th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Knowledge is factual, justified belief. Belief without justification is faith. Factual belief without justification is still faith, just faith with luck. If I say “I believe in evolution” without having any knowledge of the relevant supporting evidence, then my statement is an expression of faith. I just happen to be lucky that my faith is consistent with reality. But there is nothing wrong with a non-scientist using such a statement.
Facts do not change whether we believe them or not, or know them or not. But human beings, at least, cannot say that they know something without believing in it first.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Regarding the comments on Gov. Palin:
I have lived in Alaska during her whole tenure in office and find it really bizarre to see her portrayed as some sort of mullah-ette. She has focused primarily on cutting costs, cleaning up corruption, and prodding along construction of the natural gas pipeline. The Governor’s religion has been low-key enough that I wasn’t even aware she was particularly devout until the press brought it up following the VP nomination. I think it’s telling that with approval rating running 80-90%, in a fairly conservative state, she made no effort to impose any kind of socially conservative agenda. In fact, the only “culture wars” type of bill she acted on was one which would have stripped employee benefits from the same-sex partners of state employees. She vetoed it.
Anyone who bothers to post in a discussion board on the topic has probably already made a choice in the election, so I’m not trying to swing any votes. You should be aware, though, that the portrait that the media have painted of the Gov. bears little resemblance to anything but the sum total of their prejudices and dark fantasies.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
On the other hand, TominAK, watching the interview with Palin conducted by Katie Couric was, to put it mildly, terrifying. The woman could not form a coherent statement without checking her notes, and when she did, she muddled the stock answers they contained, applying talking points willy-nilly with no regard for whether or not they fit the question she’d been asked.
Go to the CBS news (should have put news in quotes, but I’m in a generous mood) and read the transcript. She is out of her league, regardless of her record as governor of Alaska.
//shudders
September 25th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Spongebob 2008!
September 25th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Palin publically states that she wants “both sides” (as if there were only 2) discussed, but personally she is a young earth creationist.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
@ Arthur–
Where did Palin say she was a young earth creationist? Specifically–not hearsay.
And is it not okay to have a discussion? She did clarify her answer after the “both sides” statement (something that a lot of people seem to forget). She actually does not advocate teaching both sides, nor has any of her executive actions promoted the same (see Tom above).
September 25th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Tom, most of you say may be true, but you did leave out Troopergate which if true, as the evidence of the emails seem to indicate, is an appalling example of using her office to continue a personal vendetta at the cost of one person’s job, and the fact that she left her home town deep in debt (where none existed before) through incompetent management of the land deal for the local sports center she had built. She has also lied repeatedly about her role in the Bridge to Nowhere and her comments about her great track record against earmarks is disingenuous at best.
As for her performance in the two legitimate interviews she’s given in nearly a month (can you believe that–just two!) she’s been so unimpressive that even staunch Republicans can’t believe what they’re seeing. I blame McCain for picking her, but I blame her for not turning it down. She is not ready, and will never be so.
That’s all apart from her religious beliefs. While I can accept that she would not turn America into a theocracy, there is certainly cause for concern. All three of the churches she has attended in her adult life are affiliated with the “Third Wave” movement, which is a Dominionist organization. So she has been taught from the pulpit for well nigh 20 years that it is the duty of Christians to win high office in businesses and politics in order to bring country under God’s sovereign rule as envisaged in Old Testament Israel.
Perhaps she doesn’t believe that stuff, despite choosing to attend Dominionist churches for decades, but I don’t believe the country can afford to take the chance.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Psst. creationists all know what “both sides” is code for…
September 25th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Great answer Obama. The very fact that he added “not subject to experimental scrutiny” really shows that he understands that science is and (maybe this is a bit of a stretch) and how and why it is useful. But boy do I wish one day Americans will get the pleasure of hearing presidents debate Kuhn vs Popper. My standards are pretty high, but I really think that you can’t have a president who understands science and will be able to make scientific policies and initiatives until they understand the significance of this debate.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
How’s this for an email supposedly doing the rounds (very funny – if you’re not American):
Dear American:
I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.
I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.
I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.
This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.
Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.
Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson
September 25th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
@shane
You got my email!
I left an “m” off Gramm though, and I fear that will lead some people to believe the deal’s not legit.
Oh, I miss the good old days when Phil Gramm would run for president. I don’t remember his politics, but I do remember that at least once a speech he would say something like “I’m an ugly turtle, and I failed the third grade”. Seriously, he did. I couldn’t believe that he didn’t realize that only smart, good-looking turtles are allowed to vote.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Tacitus:
Bottom line on “troopergate” is that (1) she let go an at-will p0litical appointee; one who serves completely at her discretion. (2) Even if the absolute “worst” case scenario were true, which I don’t think there’s evidence to support, she would have fired an at-will appointee who refused to discipline an out-of-control subordinate (tasered his kid, drank on duty, killed game out of season, abused his authority, quite possibly threatened to kill her family). I don’t really see that there’s anything particularly scandalous.
As far as readiness for office; her experience is roughly equal to Obama’s. . . .and she’s the understudy, as opposed to the top of the ticket. If performance in interviews is your standard for being suitable to hold office; fine. Politics is definitely a blood sport in which our leaders need to be able to survive. Just give me a chance to see Sen. Obama under similar circumstances, as I’d like to compare apples to apples. Let’s first have a month of all-out, over the top assaults by the mainstream press & TV on Sen. Obama, his wife, and his daughters. Let’s have the media seriously question whether he is his mother’s son. After all, if he was adopted . . . . perhaps he’s not a US citizen. His kids are a little young for the SLUT!1!!1! accusation, but maybe we could have press speculation that they’re spoiled or unpleasant, or something. Let’s have his personal e-mail hacked and the illegally-acquired contents of the account brazenly published by Gawker. Then throw him to a hostile, condescending interviewer and see how he does.
I’m not sure what you mean by “third wave dominionism”. Is it anything like the Illuminati or the Bilderbergers? In any case, as I’ve pointed out, she has governed in a completely secular manner, even in a situation where she had plenty of political capital to do otherwise. Why is there “certainly cause for concern”? Are you saying that we should politically blackball anyone whose religion is suspected by anyone, anywhere of anything? We could shut out the Jews because the might be part of some Zionist conspiracy, the Catholics because they might have allegiance to the Vatican, and so on . . .
September 26th, 2008 at 12:22 am
If all people of science are this hostile to people of faith, I am unsure if I want to continue my education.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Nentuaby Says: I am so freaking tired of that pedantic meme. You can believe or disbelieve a fact, people. They are NOT antonyms in any sense.
No, that is simply not the case. You can believe or disbelieve an INTERPRETATION of facts, but you cannot disbelieve facts themselves. Facts are facts. If something is a fact then it is true. This is not simply a matter of semantics, but rather the crux of a deep philosophical rift between those who accept reality and those who reject it. Those who reject reality believe that they can twist reality (facts) to fit their belief system. Those who accept reality believe that you cannot twist reality to fit your belief system.
So really, you *cannot* disbelieve facts without being delusional (ie: religious, crazy, or just ignorant (using that last one as a neutral word for “lack of basic knowledge about a subject”)).
September 26th, 2008 at 12:40 am
TomInAk, politics is mostly about perception and the perception is that Palin can’t cut it. Check out her skewering by Katie Couric for example.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:43 am
If all people of science are this hostile to people of faith, I am unsure if I want to continue my education.
Are you saying Obama’s not a person of faith?
September 26th, 2008 at 12:43 am
LukeL, there isn’t much in the way of hostility here. A bit of distrust of the motives of the religious to be sure, but if you want real hostility head over to Pharyngula or somewhere. Not saying Pharyngula is overtly hostile but they will not suffer what they consider to be foolishness very well.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Actually the fact that a candidate’s faith comes up at all is extremely unnerving to those of us from Australia and Europe. Both our Prime Ministerial candidates actively touted the god bothering vote in the last election which only made both look like they were cynically after the religious vote. It was funny because the “religious vote” is tiny in Oz.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:35 am
To any who asked for a link to Palin’s advocation of teaching “both sides”:
http://www.livescience.com/culture/080901-sb-palin-creationist.html
>>>”Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”
Let KIDS debate it. While we’re at it, let kids debate areodynamics over the best shape of the next passenger jet. That’s sarcasm, yes. But kids should be LEARNING science. Not debating what THEY THINK should or should not be science. WHEN they’re QUALIFIED, then they can debate over science. In the scientific arena.
Or am I being too elitist?
(Nah, don’t think so)
September 26th, 2008 at 3:30 am
TomInAK, you mean like how the right wing media has constantly attacked Obama with memes like Obama Bin Ladin, or that he is a muslim sleeper, or that he is ‘insert the most anti American claim you care to imagine’ etc. etc. and it has gone on for a lot longer than just the month that the pig with lipstick has had to put up with it. So, did you choose to ignore that before posting or is it a case of it doesn’t count when it is done by the right, methinks I smell a touch of hypocrisy.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:37 am
Is it really just a ‘this or that’ ? Is there no room for other models. I find its ‘evolution or creationism’ is a little small in scope, given the ground for possibility given the enormous amount of time involved, and the little we actually have in the way of data, relative to the whole thing. I’m not scared to invoke exotic things like aliens as the cause and such,or just assisting is some way. I see the problem of the aliens having to have evolved anyway, but still, anything is possible. They might have lived in a far more compatible environment for evolution, and did it faster. Then made us for giggles. Some mad experiment. Far fetched, but its a big universe. The way I see it, the bigger the universe, the more that can arise from it, and the harder it becomes to pin anything down to just a couple of possibilities, then scratching one (creationism .. which I will add is anti-science) and suggesting the one you have left is the only way life could have arisen on our planet. Could have been aliens? Probably wasn’t … but it could have been. I really wish it was aliens. Just for the coolness factor.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:41 am
I just want to add I do currently understand, evolutionary theory, as it stands works well and is the best model we have to work with now. My comments are mainly tongue in cheek.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:06 am
I *can* be hostile toward people of faith, but that hostility is directly related to how hostile the person of faith is being toward reality. I consider faith – religious faith specifically – to be in the same league as belief in the Easter Bunny, selkies, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, hollow earth, leprechauns, elves, unicorns, and so forth. That some people hold a religious belief deeply does not grant that faith special status over any other childish faith.
Now, many people of faith consider my position to be “hostile” simply because I don’t put their silly belief on a pedestal above other types of delusions. That’s a position I consider to be unreasonable as well.
So if that makes me hostile toward people of faith, so be it. But if you keep your faith in sky fairies to yourself, I’ll never know and it will never be an issue. If you choose to wear your faith on your sleeve, then you’ll be subject to the same treatment that I’d give an adult who believes in Santa Claus.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Quasidog, I must admit the SF fan in me wouldn’t be at all disappointed if it turned out to be aliens. In fact it would be very, very, very cool, especially if they turned up to prove it
However, if it is aliens we still come back to turtles all the way down 
September 26th, 2008 at 5:40 am
@Phil: Your sentence “There not two different viewpoints here” is lacking a verb. I hate to be a nitpicker… no, wait, I love it.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:44 am
While it is clear that from the local horizon (the local media here) the outcome of the election doesn’t mean much, it is still clear that the choice of Palin has passed a risk and become somewhat of a liability.
That is sweet, but what has that to do with science? I sincerely hope not to have presidents debating non-validated ideas in areas such as science policy and initiatives.
Btw, I’m quite hopeful that we will one day be able to describe and understand how science works in more detail as a “science of science”. Admittedly much of that is, as in other areas of practical methods, tacit knowledge. But as biology teaches us even the contingent outcomes of functional learning can sometimes be understood from the more solid basis of testable process knowledge. (As biological populations are, after all, functional learning systems as regards the environment.)
Meanwhile we have the opportunity to listen to philosophers speculating wildly on areas outside their own. (¬_¬) As an antidote I suggest Alan Sokal, IIRC he pulls the pants of all of them and delivers the sound spanking they evidently need. But perhaps I’m partial, he is after all a mere scientist discussing science.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:17 am
ibugeye said:
Ibugeye, you seem to have missed something here. It is entirely possible to be a sincere, non-hypocritical Christian and still accept that science is humanity’s best endeavour for understanding the way in which the universe works. After all, there are a great many scientists who are also Christians.
If it helps, consider the process of science to be humanity rummaging through God’s toolkit.
On the other hand, McCain has never come right out and said that teaching creationism as if it were science is wrong. I think the most telling aspect of this is that McCain’s campaign has just refused to respond to the questions. Clearly McCain wants the vote of the antiscience demographics.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:53 am
@TomInAK
Good posts. Well said. Agreed.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:18 am
@ TomInAK – setting aside any personal attacks you seem to feel the need to defend Governor Palin from, I saw that Couric interview. Based on qualification and ability alone, watching that performance, how can you defend her as a potential holder of the highest political office in the world?
@LukeL –
That was a joke, right? I think you’ll find that the hostility generally runs in the other direction. Look up the Catholic League for confirmation of that.
Oh, and if perception of “hostility to people of faith” is any sort of reason for continuing or not continuing your education in any way whatsoever, perhaps continued education is not for you.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Science, including evolution, and Christian religious belief are NOT incompatible — except to some fundamentalist groups. The recurring theme in this & related blogs is that they are.
- The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution
- The religious website, http://www.reasons.org/ , uses the Bible to argue for an old-Earth model consistent with modern science, for example.
That site gives a hint as to why the Evolution/Christian & Old vs. Young Earth debates occur in its banner statement: “providing powerful new reasons from science to believe in Jesus Christ”
Not to preach, but consider this brief background as a preface to a point: IF a self-proclaimed Christian believes in Jesus Christ, that belief is based on faith — that’s an irrefutable requirement per the Bible (in fact, per the New Testament, disbelief in or rejection of the ‘Holy Spirit/Ghost’ is the [sole/only I think] unforgivable sin).
So, IF a Christian has faith (so s/he says), then why does s/he need “new reasons….to believe…”????
The answer seems simple, they DO NOT have faith and need proof to maintain some belief system…or…in the case of creationists they need to exclude a lot of scientific findings to maintain a belief system.
This points to some psychological need being fed by the belief system, and they depend, almost certainly, on a social network of like-minded people dependent on the same psychocological defense mechanisms. Thus, when something really objective challenges the belief this entire psychological & social support structure is under attack. Proof (for those subsribing to the ‘reasons to believe’ site & similar sites) is for doubters, otherwise their faith would preclude that need for proof. For fundamentalists (anti-evolutionists) are first & foremost fooling themselves and at some level (mostly subconscious) they know this already. Naturally, these people will react strongly to being prompted into introspection that forces them to look beyond their pretense.
A description of this sort of irrational defense mechanism being engaged is described in M. Scott Peck’s book, “People of the Lie” (though not on the subject of science or creationism, the underlying mechanism is essentially the same).
Also, addressing religion on this theme, is an article by Dr. Price:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_biblicism.htm
Thus, its the religious fundamentalists that are stirring things up, and if someone can figure out some tactics–over & above objective logic–that gets this outspoken minority to address their psychological needs we’d all be better off. That’s a tall order & I’m not one with the answer….but….its a factor worthy of review.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Just one thing..
“There not two different viewpoints here.”
Should read
“There ARE not two different viewpoints here.”
..Right?
September 26th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I mean.. that’s a wordsplosion right there. I wonder if I should take a screenshot and send it to them… heheh *evil laugh*
September 26th, 2008 at 8:17 am
@ Ken
Nor do they embrace it fully without religiously derived caveats. Fail.
Arguments which are seriously scientifically flawed and conjured from the same thin air as creationism. Fail.
Hold on a second… don’t you see the contradiction in your own statement? First you use the Bible as a means of providing an irrefutable requirement for faith, then say that the same Bible can be disregarded when it comes to its statements on the development of life on this planet. So which is it? Which parts of the Bible are “irrefutable” and which parts are open to interpretation once science finds flaws in its assertions?
I would argue that you don’t particularly well understand the mind of a creationist, and it’s the creationist that would in fact accuse you of not having faith. If you truly have faith, how can any part of the Bible be flawed? And if any one part is flawed, how is a strong-faithed person supposed to know which is which? Isn’t it more “faithful” to accept it all without equivocation?
September 26th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I am working with Mr. Phil Gram
Gram is actually an advisor from England. Our guy is Bob Ounce.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:43 am
It ain’t my country so I can’t really comment. The Hell with it. In the name of the planet PLEASE keep McCain/Palin outa the White House!
September 26th, 2008 at 10:09 am
@shane “Dear American: I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.”
ROFLMAO
September 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Did anyone bother to read the full URL that BA provided? There are several questionable things that Mr. Obama had to say. Namely:
1.) “Establish the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure”
Egad, CTO? Now let me think. What institutions have a position called CTO? Oh, that’s right … CORPORATIONS. We all know what warm and fuzzy feelings most posters on this board have for corporations.
2.) “The nuclear waste disposal efforts at Yucca Mountain [in Nevada] have been an expensive failure and should be abandoned. I will work with the industry and governors to develop a way to store nuclear waste safely while we pursue long-term solutions.”
GO NUCLEAR! GO NUCLEAR! Oh wait, we don’t have a place to store nuclear waste. It definitely won’t be in Nevada. O.K. No problem. I’ll work with the nation’s governors to come up with a place to store it which is likely to be the weakest and most politically impotent location in the country. Hey, why not the Navajo Indian reservation? Or if not there then perhaps Boulder, Colorado.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:39 am
@ Tom Marking
OK… but does that make it an inherently bad idea? As an IT manager, I’ve worked for corporations that have CTO’s and those that don’t, and i can tell you that the advantage of having a person in a position of oversight with a focus on the technology that runs the business is huge.
Interesting straw-man, since that’s not what he said, and more interesting since you actually quoted what he did say in your own post. So is it that you don’t really know the difference between “come up with a place to store it” and what Obama said, which was “come up with a way to store it”? Or are you re-phrasing for the sake of humor?
September 26th, 2008 at 11:02 am
McCain also supports nuclear power, but at least in science debate 2008 he doesn’t address the issue of safety or waste disposal at all.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Now that’s being pedantic, and not even in an altogether correct manner. Merriam-webster gives me:
And that’s often how it’s used colloquily. Not to mean having unwavering faith in something, but simply to take something as being true. The philosophy text my professor used in critical thinking used it in the same way.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Evolutionists, those who think that the constantly evolving (pun intended)theory of evolution is fact or factual, subject to examination as it evolves and is developed (DNA for example) do not care if there was or is a who, a god or other creator, they (and I) want to know both how and all there is to know about it.
Many creationists are people who do not want Jefferson’s and Madison’s and my wall separating church and state; what better device than ID or creationist believing to use to get to our children in science class toward tearing down the wall, other creationists have their own rational which I leave to others to explain.
Similarly for abortion, many right to life proponents sincerely and singularly are against abortion but many are using abortion as a device to tear down the wall; others may determine percentages of who are in which group.
Religiuos considerations underlie much of our political endeavors; a friend who believes in “sudden appearance of man” told me that I too was a beliver because I believed in evolution; I corrected him with admonition that I and our scientific community think about it and think that evolution is sound scientific theory.
Come to Texas, we will purge you of your atheistic nonsense thinking about evolution.
BernieAttorney
September 26th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
RE: Celtic_Evolution Says’ comments to my observations:
The issue is that when the Bible is used by a religious fundamentalist as a source of “science” the perspective can be extraoridarily variable. The observations I noted cannot possibly apply to all creationists as the “creationist” perspective covers a lot of viewpoints — many of which are incompatible. In addition to the familiar Bible-based 6000 yr old Earth viewpoint is another extreme Bible-based viewpoint that the Earth is just as old as science estimates it to be. BOTH reflect the mind of some Creationists, just very very different types of Creationists. There are others. The 6000 year (’young-Earth’ types get the most attention).
The point I tried to make by way of illustration is that linking the Bible & science is a nonsensical exercise. “Science is about the heavens, the Bible is about getting to Heaven.” [author unknown, to me] There is no rational intersection between the Bible and science (especially when the Bible is so worded to allow whatever a given believer wants to see in it — in this regard its a bit like a theological/psychological Rorschach test).
So why do Creationists, etc. invoke science on matters of faith? ONE explanation for some (a lot) of them is that they’re compensating for some other psychological needs, and, part of they psychology is that at some level they lack the faith they claim & are searching for proof (one may recall the story of “Doubting” Thomas who needed to see the risen Jesus’ wounds to believe). True faith would not be challenged by & so sensitive to someone else’s viewpoint.
Proof is for Doubters — and if you happend to get in a debate with a typical Creationist point this out & watch their expression. Chances are you’ll see a flicker of insight showing you they realize that their doubt/lack of faith is the core issue. Again, not all, but quite a lot.
Regardless, any single reference book that allows its content to be interpreted to allow such wildly opposing viewpoints to an extent the adherents of those views are willing to kill & die for them (e.g. Northern Ireland) has no place in a school curricula. Thank the Founders for separation of church & state.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“Interesting straw-man, since that’s not what he said, and more interesting since you actually quoted what he did say in your own post. So is it that you don’t really know the difference between “come up with a place to store it” and what Obama said, which was “come up with a way to store it”?”
O.K. Not only does Obama not know where to store nuclear waste, but he does not know how to store nuclear waste. This is not an improvement. Usually when politicians make comments like “I will work with …” or “I will appoint a blue-ribbon committe to do …” it is a tacit admission that they don’t have a plan to solve the problem.
Now McCain has been vigorously attacked on this board for being vague and not having specifics in a number of areas, and quite rightly so. But what’s good for the goose has to be good for the gander. Neither candidate has a credible proposal in regards to nuclear energy IMHO.
I also find it interesting that neither candidate mentions the current U.S. “black” budget spent on top secret defense programs which is estimated to be more than $30 billion annually. This is more than the entire annual funding for the National Institutes of Health. Neither candidate promises a review of the “black” budget to make sure we are getting our money’s worth. I can only assume that both candidates will continue funding these secret and unaccountable programs at their current rate or higher, since neither one even acknowledges their existence.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
[...] and the candidates: in their Nature Science and the candidates: in their nature by Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy Nature magazine is one of the leading scientific journals in the [...]
September 26th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
OK… better.
Now, please indicate to me how this is any better or worse than any other statement or idea proposed by any other politician about not only where, but how to store nuclear waste. From where i sit, I haven’t heard anyone propose a decent solution. And in Obama’s case, I think this response was perfectly reasonable given the context of the question he was asked.
On this point you won’t get an argument from me… but i see more honesty in the response from Obama.
Perhaps he doesn’t know of a good way to deal with the situation. So if you were a person charged with solving a problem like that at an executive level, but you yourself do not have the expertise or knowledge to solve the problem directly, how do you respond? I think an intelligent person would work with a group of people who do know how it might be done, instead of giving specific answers he doesn’t truly understand. I still see nothing wrong with the statement, in its context, as it was presented.
With regards to the “black budget”. While you may have a valid point, I think it’s fair to point out that in all likelihood, neither candidate probably has enough access to any of the details of such a budget to argue one way or the other about how to deal with it. Arguing such a position with very few or no specifics is probably something both candidates would rather not pursue, IMHO.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
@ Ken
Thanks for the response… I think we may on some level have similar viewpoints on this, but I want to just clear up a couple of points…
Unless you’re talking about the proposed “length of Biblical Day” argument, where creationists argue that a day as written in the Bible is not equivalent to a “day” as we perceive it on the 24 hour scale (which is equally loopy and brings up a whole new set of contradictions), then I am not familiar with with other Bible-based viewpoints that put the age of the earth just as old as science estimates. Can you cite those for me?
And I still disagree with your argument for creationist motives. I still say that the average creationist is simply guilty of cognitive dissonance, as a result of unquestioned faith. Quite the opposite of your “doubting” argument. But that dovetails into a discussion that brings this even more OT than it’s already gotten.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“Now, please indicate to me how this is any better or worse than any other statement or idea proposed by any other politician about not only where, but how to store nuclear waste.”
John Edwards on nuclear energy:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Edwards_Energy_+_Oil.htm
“Q: What about nuclear power as an alternative energy source?
A: Wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels are the way we need to go. I do not favor nuclear power. We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don’t have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. It is a huge problem for America over the long term.”
Now, here’s a statement by a politician who admits that there is NO way to dispose of nuclear waste safely. Unlike Obama and McCain he doesn’t go on and include nuclear power as part of his energy program. I’d say that qualifies as a better statement.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
@ Ken –
To clarify my question above… I’m aware that there are young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists, but my understanding is that OEC’s either derive their age of the earth by changing what a “day” means in the Bible, or by not using the Bible at all and just saying “don’t take the Bible literally, the earth is really old, but Goddidit”. I don’t know of another “Biblically derived” means of old-earth creation ideas.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Re: Torbjörn Larsson, OM
ALRIGHT! someone took the bait! The good it would do is that if two people can have a real debate about the fundamental principles of scientific investigation that goes beyond “science is in the interest of proving every word of the bible right” and actually has some philosophical content, then it’s clear that these two people have an clear understanding of science. As far as funding goes, you simply cannot properly fund any scientific initiative if you don’t have a clear understanding of the subject matter – and that includes the philosophy behind it. Just like if you’re going to have a substantial impact on the economy you better understand the fundamental principles of your economic platform. The same goes for human rights. So why is science pushed in the background as far as debate goes when the government has a significant impact on scientific progress and inquiry?
For the record – GO KUHN!
September 26th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Obama’s respect for science is only one of the many reasons for supporting him. Another is his not being impetuous like McCain, whose temper flares in the Senate are legendary. His impetuousness was also behind his getting shot down in Vietnam. As he explains on page 188 of his own book Faith of my Fathers, he deliberately failed to take evasive action when his plane’s sensors told him a SAM missile was right on his tail, violating common sense and his own training. Thus his crash was his own doing. I am nervous about having an impetuous hothead with his finger anywhere near a red button. And the thought of Sarah Mooseburger in line to succeed him is positively chilling.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
RE: Celtic_Evolution Says: … regarding creationism, etc.
First, I think you’re getting into much more detail than I intended. I’ll stick with my contention that a lot (not all) of the fundamentalists harbor doubts about their faith based on my observations if nothing else — though the one website quoted (reasons[to believe].org) pretty much gives it away in its punchline coupled wiht its use of science (such as that use is). Such doubts coupled with a dogmatic faith are one form of cognitive dissonance. But that item aside:
At issue in the religious fundamentalism/creationist debate are some underlying mindsets that are not true for a lot of various Christians. A person can claim to believe in the Bible, be a Christian, and:
- interpret it literally — resulting in a young-Earth, etc. outlook. Depending on which of these you might speak with the specific person will assert a literal 6000 yr age of the Earth as we measure time now. Another one from another church would use a more allegorical approach–that a day for God is like a 1000 years for us. Its not hard to find Creationists that seem harmonious that disagree strenously if they happen to get together & debate the finer points of their philosophy. Some don’t seem to know why the figure is what it is and merely parrot what they’ve heard their pastor say, etc. (I’ve heard some be more flexibile– 6000 to 10,000 years, but no more.).
- interpret it as allegorical — resulting in a wide range of outlooks; by some perspectives the Catholic Church falls in this category (and that veiw is fluid, see below).
- believe in evolution as compatible with thier intepretation approach to the Bible,
- or flatly reject evolution as totally incompatible with their interpretation approach to the Bible
- Put another way, a scientist might or might not believe in God (and a sizeable proportion do; over 30 percent by some surveys), the Bible, etc. and knowing that level of detail doesn’t really tell someone much regarding what they might believe. I know a PhD chemist that recognizes the evolution of ‘germs’ & related matters, but cannot accept evolution.
Those are just the obvious items.
++> Thus, being a “Christian” covers a lot of potential incompatible philosophical & theological territory with dogmatic certainty based on interpretation of the Bible (Christians come in a wide variety of “flavors” and its not unusual for a given person to change their theology in some fundamentally substantial ways). From my observation, most don’t have the details worked out for most positions; and if questioned its not hard to see they make up the details as they ramble on (especially if one remembers & queries them much later on the same point & gets a different answer).
Also, for example, note the Catholic Church recently (this century) finally changed its views on the Earth-as-Center-of-the-Universe model of creation (thereby saving Galileo). That’s a pretty big switch–and the words still in the Bible readily support a Earth-Centered-Universe …. those that literally interpret the Bible can’t (or at least very few can) accept that given scientific findings…so they pretty much ignore those details.
That one book is the basis for numerous Christian denominations split from Catholocism…and the various adherents will commonly argue about various details to the point of raging fury. All of which highlights that a single book can be stretched to cover just about any outlook a person might want. How its “stretched” to cover some position is often a function of a given person’s outlook/mood at a given point in time.
Printing it on latex rubber sheets, or Silly Putty, to cover the theological & philosophical territory its used to cover — literally (like the most extreme interpretations go — somehow seems appropriate.
By the way, none of this is really new. Back around 400 AD-ish (I don’t recall the specifics, but it was early) was a guy named Marcion who analysed the Old & New Testaments of the Bible & concluded the God of the Old Testament was too mercurial to be the “good” God of the New Testament. That religion, Marcionism, almost beat out the Christianity we know today (maybe it was around 400 AD that the Church, with political authority, pretty much finish wiping out Marcionism). Oprah’s recent remarks regarding religion (check YouTube) sound fundamentally a lot like Marcionism resurrected (though I doubt she’s aware of that). Which highlights that people create the God they want/need–which feeds some psychological need. On the other hand, some invent a God that gives them power (e.g. the Divine Right of Kings & any wacko cult leader) so they can exploit/control others.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“Back around 400 AD-ish (I don’t recall the specifics, but it was early) was a guy named Marcion who analysed the Old & New Testaments of the Bible & concluded the God of the Old Testament was too mercurial to be the “good” God of the New Testament. That religion, Marcionism, almost beat out the Christianity we know today (maybe it was around 400 AD that the Church, with political authority, pretty much finish wiping out Marcionism).”
Since this is way OT anyway I thought I might chime in. Marcion dates from the 2nd century CE. One of the firm dates we have is 144 CE which was the year that Marcion was excommunicated for heresy by the Chrisitian Church at Rome. His followers continued for several centuries after his death. Marcion is usually considered a Gnostic although this is much debated by historians. The Gnostics believed in Gnosis (i.e., hidden knowledge) and they also believed that Yahweh is an evil god who is different than a greater God who is good. It was also Marcion who developed the first Christian canon which consisted of the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Allow me to be the 3rd person here to notice the lack of a verb between “There” and “not”.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:14 am
John Phillips, FCD.
I mean, sure, turtles all the way down, no. Just, I only mean to invoke turtles … a fair way down, but ending at some point. At the moment there is only one turtle, and its imaginary friend the other turtle that does not exist. Still, I prefer to think there might be a few more turtles. Not an infinite amount, but definitely more than one. It’s just that the universe is so, so very, big, and we know practically nothing about so many aspects of it’s structure and content, and its history. Just a few more turtles.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:55 am
OK – a little late in the game, but…
IMO there are two types of belief: evidence-based and faith-based. I say that my beliefs are evidence-based. I have not actually gone and done the science myself, but I believe it based on accumulated evidence.
Observed evolution is a fact, and also a theory. As with any science, you cannot say dogmatically “THIS IS TRUE!!!”. Therefore, I also say that my evidence-based beliefs come with certain confidence levels. The confidence level for evolution is very very high (but not 100%). We could be wrong. The confidence level for big bang theory is a bit lower – lots of evidence but a few sticking points. The confidence level for YEC is about as close to zero as you can get – BUT I COULD BE WRONG.
Even though the IDiots have no evidence whatsoever, if they ever say “here is some evidence” we must approach it with an open mind – this is skepticism.
However, I don’t think this means we have to live our lives as if all scientific knowledge were in doubt.
Here’s another way of looking at it. As an athiest, I would never say “there is no god – I know it because it is a fact”. What I do say is “I reject all extant god hypotheses due to lack of supporting evidence”. Maybe there is some sort of god somewhere, but there is no evidence of it so I will proceed assuming the universe is completely natural. Similarly, there is a gigantic mountain of evidence supporting evolution, so I will proceed as if evolution were absolutely true. All the while, keeping a lookout for more evidence, pro or con. This, I (evidence-based) believe, is the true nature of science.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:28 am
OntarioGal said:
There are other categories, too, that I think will help you out a bit here.
We can say with 100% certainty that, even if modern evolutionary theory is wrong, it is at the very least a close approximation to reality. The data we have support this conclusion. There is a parallel to this – Newtonian gravitational theory, even though it is known to be “wrong”, is still a close approximation to reality.
On the other hand, most of the claims of all YEC authors have been shown, by observation of the available evidence, to be utterly wrong. Thus, we can say with 100% certainty that, even if our theories of evolution, planetary formation etc. are wrong, YEC is still wrong. Utterly, completely and indisputibly wrong.
Thus, even though we cannot be 100% certain about what reality is, we can be 100% certain about some of the things reality isn’t.