Chris Mooney is a visiting associate in the 
So: Sheril and I have decided to do something special this week.
You see, as the author of a recent Seed cover story on how the presidential candidates need to demonstrate scientific leadership, I was pleasantly surprised to find Hillary Clinton seize this very issue last week, with an inspiring speech and the release of a detailed list of policy proposals. Both bear further analysis...and that's what we're going to be doing here this week. Point by point, if you will.
True, Sheril is still allowed to blog about other stuff, and so am I. But as we swing into full campaign season, we couldn't think of a better way than to start seriously parsing and reacting to the candidates' science policies. So here goes...Sheril's first post will be coming along soon, and my analyses will be following on that.
P.S.: In the meantime, how money was Hillary's answer to a New York Times question about evolution?
In the telephone interview after the speech, Mrs. Clinton also tacitly criticized opponents of evolution. Some of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates have said flatly that they do not believe in evolution, while other Republican contenders have said they support teaching evolution, intelligent design and creationist ideas."I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying," Mrs. Clinton said in the interview. "I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason."
"I am grateful that I have the ability to look at dinosaur bones and draw my own conclusions," she added, saying, too, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is evidence that "evolution is going on as we speak."
Politics
Technology
Comments
Hillary,
"I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason."
Faith in reason? Huh? So I can only reason because it is a gift from God?
Meaningless drivel meant to appeal to "middle" America. At its heart more consistent mith fundamentalist Christianity than science.
Of course this stuff sells.
Posted by: Lance | October 8, 2007 9:50 AM
Not entirely on topic but is Mr. Mooney planning to comment of Bjorn Lomborgs op ed in Sundays' Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501676.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR
Posted by: SLC | October 8, 2007 9:53 AM
Almost 2 years ago, Charlie Rose devoted a program to discussing the legacy of Charles Darwin with guests James Watson and Edwin O. Wilson. I remember that one of the, Wilson I think, said that it was the height of arrogance to believe that once having produced the modern human, that evolution has stopped working. The problem that most have with the concepts of evolution as described here is articulated very well by Watson near the end.
"How do we have a just society when genetics is unjust?"
Something to think about in our short lives.
Posted by: Wes Rolley | October 8, 2007 11:57 AM
Hi SLC,
I have already done a piece on Lomborg:
http://www.desmogblog.com/on-hurricanes-and-global-warming-dont-cool-it-too-much
That's my take...
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | October 8, 2007 12:17 PM
Will other candidates be covered in as much depth?
Posted by: coturnix | October 9, 2007 9:17 AM