Now on ScienceBlogs: "Global Warming is not real because weather patterns have stabilized in the last 10 years!" Why statements like this need a little context.

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Search

rss.jpg   Subscribe to RSS feed

Profile

davidog.pngDave Bacon is a theoretical ski bum who is also a pseudo professor. His research is on quantum computing, his scientific passions extend to everything in physics, mathematics, computer science and beyond, and his personal pleasures include making wine, playing poker, skiing, camping, and daydreaming (although not all of those at the same time.) Nothing he says on this blog should be construed as having anything to do with his employer or his dog.


Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Other Information

The use of Occam's razor on this website is strickly prohibited.

Cows are well approximated by a sphere.
rss.jpg   Subscribe to RSS feed

« Physics Justifying Gambling | Main | The Fremont Lenin Stole Huck's Votes! »

Will the Presidential Candidates Debate Science?

Category: PoliticsReligionScience
Posted on: February 11, 2008 1:30 PM, by Dave Bacon

Share:

The U.S. presidential candidates been invited to a debate on science. Will they come? I don't know, but the thought of Mike Huckabee using biblical references in discussing science could lead to some very fun sentences. For example, if he wanted to get apocrypha-l, when talking about the bioethics of artificial wombs, he could bring up the Gospel of Thomas 15:

Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."
Of course, Mike Huckabee didn't major in math, so I worry that he won't attend for fear that the debate might test his calculating abilities (math phobia burns wide and deep.)

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/63802

Comments

1

Huckabee would never cite the Gospel of Thomas. If it's not in the King James Version, Jesus didn't say it.

But with regard to that particular verse, I always wondered: is the Father then qualified to kill Macbeth?

Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 11, 2008 2:04 PM

2

Short answer: No.

Horse races are much more interesting.

Posted by: mick | February 11, 2008 3:51 PM

3

You support an organization which excluded Ron Paul from speaking. This in itself is against science at it's core.
Science is the search for truth. All science must include all circumstance. No ommission or fact or possible fact.
If by your own action you create an outcome then your science is flawed.
You know this!!!!!
So don't complain. You brought it on yourself. Let Dr. and I repeat DOCTOR Ron Paul speak. You may not agree with him, but science seeks truth and required all the facts to make a decision. Otherwise you live in belief and religion and not fact.
Look to your own for the problem and see your error of observation. You call yourself a scientist? hmmmmmmmmm
“..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people’s minds.”
— Samuel Adams
“With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” — Abraham Lincoln
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell
“The state can’t give you free speech, and the state can’t take it away. You’re born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free…”
— Utah Phillips


Posted by: RobJ | February 12, 2008 2:35 AM

4

Yes being a DOCTOR in all caps is very impressive. Aiding racists groups in your newsletter....less so.

Posted by: Dave Bacon | February 12, 2008 10:42 AM

5

I am a postdoc at Johns Hopkins and I think "Science Debate 2008" is a great idea. It is really unfortunate that they have decided to exclude one of the five remaining major-party candidates due to their arbitrary definition of "viability": Ron Paul. Maybe with the news that Ralph Nader is running, they should extend invitations to both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader.

Posted by: Kathryn | February 24, 2008 8:20 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM