Barack Obama’s answers to 18 science questions posed by Nature were just published (John McCain declined to answer, although Nature answered many of these questions from his public statements).
These questions were much more pointed and science-related than the ones posed by Science Debate 2008. For example, they asked:
Many scientists are bitter about what they see as years of political interference in scientific decisions at federal agencies. What would you do to help restore impartial scientific advice in government?
to which Obama gave a very strong answer. And Nature corrected the obvious omission from Science Debate by asking about evolution:
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?
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.
McCain said last year, in a Republican primary debate: “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.
All pretty predictable, but I think Obama gets to the heart of the matter by saying that teaching ID clouds students’ minds. In the debate about evolution and ID that much of the focus is placed on which of these theories is right (which is of course an essential part of the debate). But I’ve always been surprised at how little attention is paid to the effects that teaching made-up crap in science class, and the accompanying implication that science is – at least on this issue – a fraud, has on the way students think about science in general.
2 Comments