Yes: We face a host of economic and environmental problems that require familiarity with science and engineering issues.
80% (1252 votes)
No: It's not the job of the American president to write science textbooks; he or she will have advisers for that.
13% (210 votes)
No: I'm suspicious of the scientific "consensus" in matters like evolution and global warming.
5% (78 votes)
Undecided
1% (16 votes)
Thoughts
Define literate. Define
Submitted on May 8th, 2008 by John 2000Define literate.
Define scientifically.
Diproved or refined?
Submitted on May 7th, 2008 by AnonymousTo say that Darwin was disproven is overly spun. It's like saying Babe Ruth was a lousy baseball player because he made outs more than 60% of the time and sometimes struck out.
In fact there are some cases of evolution that can be attributed to gradualism -- changes in beaks of Darwin's finches that have been observed over the last 35 years and changes in the size and age of maturity in fish that are harvested are good examples. However, most of the fossil record better fits the puncutated equilibrium model and the general pace of evolutionary change is often faster than what Darwin had specualted about. That's a minor detail that has been refined a modern theory that still has natural selection and evolution by common descent as the most important aspects of the punctuated equilibrium model. The model differs from Darwin primarily by saying that most diectional selection occurs near the time of speciation. The meat of Darwin's theories about evolution have never been rejected scientifically, but have been refined over the last 150 years. That is to be expected because that is how science works.
The science of Origins
Submitted on April 18th, 2008 by AnonymousActually, Darwinian Evolution, according to the actual words and standards of Charles Darwin himself, has been "disproved" in as much as Charles Darwin made certain predictions based on his theory which would "certainly happen over the next 100 years" and which most certainly did not happen.
Every time I get into this debate, however, it is either with people who accuse me of being a "fundy" ( I absolutely do not believe in "Jesus") or I am accused of being some misinformed creationist - which I am not.
The current theory which is published based on geological and archaeological evidence is called "punctuated equalibri" (sp?) and deals with fossil evidence of the Precambrian explosion, as well as much more evidence which it takes into account.
The Darwinian model of gradual evolution through natural selection and mutation has been discarded by all scientist who hold to rational thought and unbiased examination of the actual evidence. some of the scientists with whom I have discussed origins call "natural selection through gradual mutation" (laughingly) the "scary monster" theory.
Re: Democratic stupidity
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by Anonymous14 grammatical, capitalization, and spelling errors in one short paragraph. You have no right to be calling anyone stupid.
ZOMFG WTF?!
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by AnonymousDid someone seriously just say "evolution was disproved." That's the silliest thing I've heard today. How did you get on the internet?
You can't disprove evolution. It's a series of observations. Natural selection, the mechanism that causes evolution, has very few flaws, none that seriously cast doubt on the principle itself. You could argue that natural selection is NOT the mechanism by which evolution occurs, but you can't say that evolution doesn't occur.
Example: I observe two damaged cars on the side of the road. I might posit that the first car crossed into the other lane and struck the second car, causing an accident. This explains what I see fairly well.
If I find out later that this is NOT what happened. I do not have the luxury of saying that there weren't two damaged cars on the side of the road. I can only say that my explanation was wrong.
Where did anyone get the idea that evolution is anything but rigorously proved fact?
Loaded Question
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by AnonymousI would have voted "yes" if you had yes, no, undecided.
But your obviously trying to reason that global warming is a man made problem by stating "environmental problems."
A better question would be, "at what point does scientific observation go out the window because you think the ends justifies the means in concluding global warming can only possibly be a manmade phenomena?"
Earth has endured quite a bit more extremes of weather than this. Next you'll try and tell me that cavemen caused the Ice Age. I mean obviously they did right? Just 55 million years ago Earth was a tropical jungle into northern Canada, then humans come along and suddenly a massive Ice Age occurs?
Hey ask that question instead. Were humans responsible for climate change resulting in the Ice Age?
Or better yet don't try to lure people into voting for a preconceived answer. They have to be ultra liberal or ultra conservative, there is no middle ground right?
democratic stupidity
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousIt is as most people think out of sight out of mind, If the dems continue on their path, they will effectly shot themselves in the foot. I'm trying to figure out who is dumb and who is dumber in the democratic party. They just about taken care of the large lead they had, That's not just dumb that is plain out right stupidity, Thanks you Democratic Party you have done to yourselves what the Republican party couldn't have done on purpose. Garry in Monroe Ohio. again Thanks for being as stupid as you have become.
Democratic party turning it's back on Two States
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousAs long as the Democrates continue to ignore the states of Michigan and Florida, I will be doing the same to the Democratic Party come election time.
Weather Clinton or Obama win the nomination I for one will not be voting for anyone in the Party as long as these two states are left out of the process for choosing a canditate. I will continue to ignore Democratic candidates if the states of Michigan and Florida are left out of the convention.
GOOD BYE DEMOCRATES!!!!!!!!!!!
Evolution was proved, not disproved.
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousUnless you can show me otherwise, I can point to hundreds of recent studies showing the existence of evolution.
At what point, and in what way, was it disproved in the 1970's? That's just uneducated nonsense.
common sense
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousYou don't even have commonsense. Evolution was disproved as a theory back in the 1970's It's time for America to wake up.
i agree with you, but are YOU literate?
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by Anonymoushaha I agree with you completely, but I wonder if you are even in America, what with misspelling the president's name and all.
literacy
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by Anonymousmccain's the perfect candidate for those 26% who are either undecided or think it's not important for a president to be scientifically literate. i don't think the question is skewed, it merely asks if the president should be literate, not an expert... and at least as far as the economy is concerned, you couldn't ask for a more illiterate, ignorant, or apathetic candidate. HRM... let's STOP "WASTING" millions in teacher pay, construction, and environmental costs... on the other hand, CAN I PLEASE BORROW A FEW TRILLION... I'm trying to maintain an empire. get real...
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
DEBATE OR NOT IS THE ISSUE.
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousTHE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS TO HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE BE KNOWLEGEABLE WITH TODAYS SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY...IF PRESIDENTS ARE NOT UP TODATE IN SCIENCE WE ARE ALL DOOMED TO FAILURE IN PROMOTTING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN POUR ERA....SO MANY DOCTRINES FOR YEARS HAVE EMPHASIZED THAT THE LEADERS SHOULD BE THE BEST OF THE POPULATION BEFORE THEY ARE CLAIMED TO BE LEADERS...TODAYS EXAMPLE IS OUR PRESIDENT BUSCH...WE HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT AS A JOKE IN EVERY FORM AND SHAPE, BECAUSE OF HIS LACK OF ANY KNOWLEDGE ..
The poll on science is highly unscientific... by design!
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by BenYes, the poll is skewed. The discerning reader would, I hope, draw the same conclusion you did about the ratio of positive to negative responses.
In fact, none of the polls on this site are scientific. No online poll is. The samples are self-selecting and, because we allow anonymous users to participate, they're demographically biased as well. The polls serve no greater purpose other than to "take the temperature" of RedBlueAmerica readers and to spark discussion.
Biased Sample?
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousIsn't this poll skewed? By asking this question online (a relatively high-tech environment), this poll becomes biased towards a "high-tech" answer.
I think it would be great if the result displayed above were true for the entire united states, but how valid is this result? How much error is there? 5%? 25%?
Why are Republicans afraid of Science?
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousBecause scientists have a habit of challenging business on environmental issues, and can easily refute "creationist" theories.
I'm looking for the next leader to have common sense.