LJWorld.com / "Obama and McCain on Science" by Dangerous Ideas

Blogs home Dangerous Ideas

Obama and McCain on Science

Several people have asked for my take on the two Presidential tickets with respect to their attitudes toward science. So here goes.

From my perspective, there are good things and bad things about both candidates and science. Looking at the official web sites, Obama appears to have the better fleshed out positions and there are some important differences.

McCain seems more supportive of the idea that we need to consider nuclear power as part of our new energy mix, a stand I actually support given the new safer reactor designs that are available. Obama's position on nuclear power is less clear.

McCain's position on the space program is more similar to mine since I believe that a strong space program including a manned component along with robotics is vital to our long-term security and technological innovation.

Obama has been openly skeptical of NASA's current direction and it is not clear to me that he has the same enthusiasm for the Space program that McCain has.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php

But see this article from SpaceRef:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28880

where the Obama campaign has fleshed out a detailed set of proposals. So maybe my initial impression is misplaced.

Obama seems more committed to increasing government support for science and science education than does McCain at least according to this article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93539298

Of course what will happen when campaign promises meet economic and political reality is not at all clear.

The article has a good comparison between the two candidates stand on other science related issues.

With respect to global warming (I mean climate change) their positions are similar on the surface. However Obama seems less willing to rely just on free market forces to respond without targeted government investment in development of new technologies.

Both candidates support a so called cap and trade system for trading carbon credits but Obama seems to be arguing that if we are not careful the system will end up benefiting oil and coal producers.

Obama is more enamored with use of biofuels such as ethanol than I might like. Indeed he has the endorsement of the American Corn Grower's Association:

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/08/25/american-corn-growers-association-endorses-obama/

McCain sometimes seems to be positioning himself as a bit like William Proxmire whose "Golden Fleece" awards were meant to expose government boondoggles but from time to time merely exposed Proxmire's ignorance or unwillingness to find out why scientists do some of the seemingly crazy studies they do.

This McCain tendency was highlighted when he poked fun a study of DNA in bears, not understanding that these sorts of genetic studies are useful for understanding the biology of bears and managing bear populations.

Maybe this is just be an expression of McCain's maverick streak, but it could play out in bad science policy.

See:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mccains-beef-with-bears

My unease about McCain is heightened now that we have the VP choices. Biden is known as a strong science advocate who supports embryonic stem cell research.

See these links from The Scientists and Engineer's For America (SEA) web site about Biden:

http://sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/joseph-biden-presidential-candidate/

http://sefora.org/2008/08/22/obama-picks-biden-for-vp-how-is-he-on-science/

See also this analysis from Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=biden-brings-focus-on-energy-policy-2008-08-25

According to the Scientific American analysis, Biden is less enamored with clean coal technology than Obama saying we ought to export it to China given that countries rapid building of coal fired plants.

Biden's attitude toward the space program is hard to assess. One tidbit from the blog Science Politics is Obama's plan to resurrect the National Space council which is chaired by the Vice President. This could raise the visibility of science in an Obama administration.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/23/biden-on-space/

Palin's views on science are less clear but she supports teaching creationism or at least letting it come up in discussions about evolution.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

At least she seems to recognize that climate change is real and we need to respond to it. Of course she's from Alaska where the effects of human activity on climate are pretty hard to deny. I suspect that she would not support embryonic stem cell research given her anti choice stance.

Biden has made his feeling about intelligent design and creationism quite clear. According to the SEA article Biden is quoted as saying about intelligent design and creationism:

""This is reversible, man. This is reversible. We don't have to go down this road. I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!"

By the way McCain believes in evolution:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/mccain_and_crea.html

He is quoted as saying:

"'I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view,' he said. 'I happen to believe in evolution. ... I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not."

Obama is more forthright:

"Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp

One refreshing thing- both McCain and Obama have pledged to avoid the politicization of Science that has plagued the current administration. See this link for details:

http://evolvinginkansas.blogspot.com/2008/08/npr-mccain-obama-vow-to-keep-politics.html

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

29 August 2008
at 5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Evolution is either a worldview, a philosophy or a creation story imagined by anti-theists. Science is observable, provable and repeatable. Evolution therefore is not science Paul.

Want to see a good scientist pick evolution apart and separate it from verifiable, real science, then read a few intelligent insights from a practicing satellite scientist at

www.creationsafaris.com/news

He is also great a pointing out the inside debate raging among evolutionists!
29 August 2008
at 5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansascrone (Virginia Rigney) says…

paul - thanks for doing the foot-work for us. i will check out the links. and while i will be making my own decision based on that info and info from other sources; i do appreciate an educated opinion like yours.

i would be interested in seeing similar blogs from “experts” on the other issues as well. economic policy and foreign policy come to mind.
29 August 2008
at 6:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

bondmen

If creationsafari.com is where you obtain your information about science I think it's safe to say you have no idea what you're talking about.

Creationism cannot be taught as science. Period.
29 August 2008
at 6:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

acoupstick, have you considered the possibility you are not quite understanding what is being written at this post graduate level science discussion website?

Naturally I don't rely on just one source for information regarding current discoveries and other science topics. Creationsafaris.com writes in his spare time as he is otherwise fully employed, consequently he covers only a smattering of evolution news.
29 August 2008
at 8:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Thanks Paul. I agree with Linda that I will spend some time reading these links before making a decision as to where to cast my vote. I don't have a problem with those people who believe on either side of the fence. Most interesting debates coming up!
29 August 2008
at 9:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Bondman,

You keep repeating the same tired line. I know you don't like it for various reasons, and I appreciate you have always been honest about that, but evolution is the best explanation we've got about the general processes governing the diversity of life. Repeating the same tired misconceptions does not make them true.

How you can possibly think that creationism is verifiable at all escapes me. Evolution is observable directly and we can test evolutionary mechanisms and hypotheses both in the laboratory and the field and through comparative methods quite analogous to the methods used to study the origins of ancient texts including the Bible.

K.U. has a number of fine evolutionary biologists and if you want to talk intelligently about evolution, why don't you take some biology courses and learn about evolution? If you want, think of it as learning about your enemy. But at least then you will be able to talk intelligently about evolution even if you are not convinced by the arguments.

Why don't you try it.

By the way if you are interested in religion and it's relationship to evolution and you don't want to do the K.U. route, pick up a copy of Ken Miller's book Finding Darwin's God. I can't say I agree with everything Miller says, but it will give some insight as to how one might reconcile religion with evolution.
29 August 2008
at 11:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RogueThrill (Anonymous) says…

Thanks for the links.
30 August 2008
at 5:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Paul, your protestations favoring evolution as the creative reason explaining life's diversity is also tired and does not make it so. Why universities are filled with evolutionary this and evolutionary that's is because Darwinism is the dominate paradigm at this particular time. That does not make it so either be warned. Recall, science once promoted the idea of spontaneous generation of life, the sun circling the earth and bleeding as a cure for some diseases in the human body. The list goes on and on as you know.

Neo-Darwinism does not explain more and more as scientist more deeply understand the entire genomes of living creatures. Paul, do you read the many criticisms evolutionist scientists have for certain ideas their fellow evolutionists hold in light of new information? These are important and telling and I would encourage you not to skip over them when presented in new studies.

Now I'll recommend a thoughtful author for you to detail how evolutionists have made their field of study into a religion. It's probably not in the university library Paul but amazon.com has them all. Take a look with an open mind at Cornelius G. Hunter's work titled “Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science” and “Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism.”

The pillars of neo-Darwinism are crumbling Paul and think how exciting it is to be there in the thick of it while it happens!
30 August 2008
at 8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RogueThrill (Anonymous) says…

If evolution turns out to be provably false then that is all well and good. To advocate, as an alternative, something as silly as “someone just made us” is lazy and counterproductive. We will never find the truth in anything if our ultimate solution to every demanding question is just “the god(s) who(m) is(are) the flavor of the millennia(geographical location) did it”.
30 August 2008
at 8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

If you think about the examples you give- spontaneous generation, the geocentric idea etc- it was people applying the scientific world view who over turned those ideas- not people applying “creation science” or for that matter “atheist science”.

As your question about whether or not I read about criticism “evolutionists” have for other ideas based on new information? Of course I have, after all evolutionary biology one of my areas. The fact that evolutionary biologists disagree about certain things in the “light of new information” is exactly the mark of a dynamic field.

Scientific theories are provisional to varying degrees and new observations and experimental evidence are constantly causing scientists to modify their ideas. The evolutionary biology of today is not the evolutionary biology of Darwin in many respects. Darwin would be amazed.

What you interpret as crumbling pillars is growth and its growth due to application of the scientific world view. Oh by the way, I do agree with part your last sentence: how exciting to be there in the thick of it while it happens!

Back to the subject of my post. If you like McCain's attitudes toward science and technology better than Palin's then factor that into your decision when you vote. If other people like Obama and Biden's attitudes then they will factor that into their decision to vote.

I personally think Palin doesn't understand science but I admire her reformist attitude and it does appear that, in spite of her personal feelings about different topics she is trying to put the interests of the citizens of her state first and I could give examples…but may that is a topic best taken up at Ronda's blog.

By the way there was an interesting series about Palin on NPR yesterday I think everyone will enjoy.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st…

Make sure you get the whole link.
30 August 2008
at 8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

“… McCain on Science”

,;-D

This is your brain. This is your brain on shrubs….
30 August 2008
at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notnowdear (Anonymous) says…

Posted for all you creationists:
Media Release | Aug. 28, 2008
“Armoured” Fish Study Helps Strengthen Darwin's Natural Selection Theory
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media…

Shedding some genetically induced excess baggage may have helped a tiny fish thrive in freshwater and outsize its marine ancestors, according to a UBC study published today in Science Express.

Measuring three to 10 centimetres long, stickleback fish originated in the ocean but began populating freshwater lakes and streams following the last ice age. Over the past 20,000 years a relatively short time span in evolutionary terms freshwater sticklebacks have lost their bony lateral plates, or “armour,” in these new environments.

“Scientists have identified a mutant form of a gene, or allele, that prohibits the growth of armour,” says UBC Zoology PhD candidate Rowan Barrett. Found in fewer than one per cent of marine sticklebacks, this allele is very common in freshwater populations. (snip)

“This study provides further evidence for Darwin's theory of natural selection by showing that environmental conditions can directly impact genes controlling physical traits that affect the survival of species,” says Barrett.

Photos of armoured and armour-less sticklebacks are available at: www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/download

For more information, visit: Rowan Barrett - UBC Zoology
30 August 2008
at 12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notnowdear (Anonymous) says…

Bondman, you are living under an illusion. Wake up and see the real world. You limit your knowledge to someone else's talking points. Go out there and search for yourself.

Let's face it, the antics of the creationists and the anti-abortionists are causing the churches in America to putter out. Fewer are attending church these day than in times past.

There is massive amounts of scientific support for evolution:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release…

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release…

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release…

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release…

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release…

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release…

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release…

And there are 7399 more to list here, but if these don't convince you, here is the link for those 7399:
http://search.eurekalert.org/e3/query…
30 August 2008
at 1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Not a bear,

Sticklebacks! I'm glad you mentioned this example. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute has a lecture series and one of the sets of lectures deals with evolution. You can order them on DVD and they are (at least when I got them) free.

I use these with my classes when we discuss evolution. Several of the lectures use stickle backs as an example.

The link is here:
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/ev…

Check it out.
30 August 2008
at 1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

err that's notnowdear..sorry that's what I get for reading my monitor without my glasses.
31 August 2008
at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

I, too, get irritated when people smugly dismiss science that they do not understand.

And Bondmen, why do you feel that what you value is more righteous and should be valued by all? Why should I value your understanding about the mechanisms of the universe more than my own? By the way, mine makes much more sense to me than yours. I'm not trying to push evolution upon you; I just wish for once that evolution folks could spend a day doing their research without encountering some smug dismissal of their work.
31 August 2008
at 2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

There are alot of scientists in Lawrence. I knew there were alot of military and geo-political experts, but overlooked there are many cutting edge scientists in Lawrence.
31 August 2008
at 3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tunahelper (Anonymous) says…

global warming is the biggest scam of the 21st century. kinda like omaba is the biggest scam of the 2008 election.
31 August 2008
at 4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

bondmen (Anonymous) says:

“acoupstick, have you considered the possibility you are not quite understanding what is being written at this post graduate level science discussion website?”

Not much very difficult to understand about this.

“What's a Baloney Detector? “The late astronomer and popularizer of science Carl Sagan worried that an epidemic of irrationality is loose in the world … What we need to protect ourselves from such false beliefs, Sagan writes in his book The Demon - Haunted World, is a well-equipped “baloney detector kit.” A baloney detector is simply a good grasp of logical reasoning and investigative procedure. Carl Sagan and I would agree about how to describe the principles of baloney detecting in general. We would disagree only about where the detectors are to be pointed, and especially about whether we should ever suspect the presence of baloney in claims made by the official scientific establishment.” Dr. Phillip E. Johnson, “Tuning Up Your Baloney Detector” in Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Inter-Varsity Press, 1997), pp. 37-38.”

“Carl Sagan was right: We do need baloney detectors. But we don't need to beam them on Christian beliefs, as Sagan urged; instead, let's use them to get an honest take on the fossil record and to separate science from philosophy. And we should encourage robust debate between creationists and evolutionists: It keeps both sides from ignoring evidence that does not appear to fit their theories.” Chuck Colson, “Is Natural All There Is?”, Breakpoint radio transcript #80209, 1998.”
31 August 2008
at 4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

To repeat:

“”Carl Sagan was right: We do need baloney detectors. But we don't need to beam them on Christian beliefs, as Sagan urged.”

Again, we do not need to beam them on Christian beliefs.
31 August 2008
at 4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Tom Shewmon (Tom Shewmon) says:

“There are alot of scientists in Lawrence. I knew there were alot of military and geo-political experts, but overlooked there are many cutting edge scientists in Lawrence.”

Makes you wonder if that has anything to do with the institution of higher learning in the middle of the town, doesn't it?
31 August 2008
at 5:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

By the way, Obama's campaign has just posted detailed responses to a series of 14 questions from the Science Debate 2008 organization. Maybe McCain will follow suit:

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/…
31 August 2008
at 7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

An excerpt from a Nov. 5, 2006 Anchorage Daily News article:
A significant part of Palin's base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives.
Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them).

An Anchorage Daily News article from Oct. 25, 2006 quoting some of Palin's answers to church-state questions in a PBS debate during the gubernatorial race. On the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools, she said:
Teach both.
1 September 2008
at 10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

The current Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, Michael Ruse, said on May 13, 2000:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. … Evolution is a religion. this was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameR…

Paul, you and all your followers must face your religion and admit it and stop trying to make other folks believe it is science; it is not science and as such should not be taught in a science class.
1 September 2008
at 9:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

If you read about Ruse, he believes as do I that evolution is compatible with Christianity. Do some evolutionists view evolution as taking the place of a religion…I suppose they do. I can cite for instance Richard Dawkins and his famous statement that evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Does evolution have religious and moral implications you bet but that does not make evolution at its core a religion. Evolution is a process that we know happens as certain as we know anything wlse in science.

Evolutionary theory is our attempt to explain how evolution operates. What some people do beyond that in terms of relating evolution to what ever other beliefs they might have-promulgating it as an ideology for instance is going beyond what evolution as a scientific theory is meant to do.

If that's your point-gee I agree.
3 September 2008
at 6:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Paul, as a Christian do you believe the Holy Bible is God's word? If you do then please show me where it talks about or refers to evolution being a reality.

In your view Is Richard Dawkins' atheism a religion?

Your second paragraph clearly shows me your great faith in evolution. So I am a bit surprised you are turning away, if ever so slightly, from Charles Darwin, the father of evolution. Next February you will celebrate 150 years if you haven't completely disowned him by then!

Doesn't the science modern evolutionists practice exclude the Creator God and His supernatural interventions into our time and space, by definition? Isn't it a requirement? If, as I surmise you answer is in the affirmative, then hasn't an evolutionist replaced the Creator God with a supposed mechanism that creates in place of Him? This all looks pretty religious to me.