How Important are Science Issues to You?

[CDarwin]

After the second Republican presidential debate in which the candidates were asked if they believe in evolution, Mike Huckabee expressed surprise that the question would even be asked. "[i'm] not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book." Does he have a point?

 

In politicians running for high public office (like say, President of the United States), how important are their science stances to how you're likely to vote? Do they trump other issues?

 

Would you elect a President who agreed exactly with your economic beliefs and your stance on the Iraq War and illegal immigration, but didn't (or did, I suppose, if you go that way) believe in global warming? What about one who was a Creationist? What about a President who wanted to cut NASA (or not; you get my point)? Can a scientifically illiterate leader still be a good leader?

 

I realized we've had conversations that danced around this before, but I don't think the question has ever been directly posed; at least not recently.

 

I think that in the world we live in today, and with the challenges that face us today, science illiteracy, especially life and earth science illiteracy, may be more dangerous that foreign policy illiteracy. We need a President who's going to push emissions controls, push biodiversity, push agricultural sustainability, and push evolution education because it's the single greatest tool out there for understanding why the previous three initiatives are important and making them happen. Saving our golden society from terrorists and brown skinned manual laborers isn't going to be worth much if New York is under water, and it may not even be possible if the root causes of poverty aren't addressed around the world, and that's what science promises.

[Realitycheck]

Says here that he's running about 4.5%, about what I expected. I'd say that it counts a great deal, despite whatever he might claim or imply about being un-biased.

 

This was kind of surprising, though.

 

1997 Gallup Poll Results[110]

US Group Young Earth Creationism Belief in God-guided Evolution Belief in Evolution without God

 

Public 44% 39% 10%

Scientists 5% 40% 55%

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

[Pangloss]

Would you elect a President who agreed exactly with your economic beliefs and your stance on the Iraq War and illegal immigration, but didn't (or did, I suppose, if you go that way) believe in global warming? What about one who was a Creationist? What about a President who wanted to cut NASA (or not; you get my point)? Can a scientifically illiterate leader still be a good leader?

 

What scares me more is the thought of who gets to determine whether the person in question is "scientifically illiterate".

 

But if there were such a thing as a presidential candidate whom I agreed with 100%, I'd probably have to resign due to the conflict of interest raised by the fact that I was running for the highest office in the land.

[PhDP]

Does he have a point?

 

He does have a point, Presidents don't have to be experts at everything. But the real question is; can we trust a politician which is going to rely on the Bible, or ideology, instead of relying on experts? I’m sure some of the greatest leaders of the world were quite ignorant about many things, but I think they had to be able to listen to the right people at the right time to be great leaders.

 

If Bush had listened to the experts on the Middle East, the U.S. would not be in Iraq. It has nothing to do with how much Bush know about the Middle East, but it has a lot to do with how much he listens, and care, about the opinion of experts..

[iNow]

This actually worries me quite a lot. It's strange that it occurs more frequently with Republicans, but this is one of the most bipartisan issues I've ever seen since it impacts us all.

 

Remember, we decide:

 

 

Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution, Gallup Survey Finds 68% Of Republicans Disbelieve Scientific Explanation Of Creation - CBS News

The three Republican presidential candidates who indicated last month that they do not believe in evolution <iNow Comment:

> may have been taking a safe stance on the issue when it comes to appealing to GOP voters.

 

A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.

 

Republicans saying they don't believe in evolution outnumbered those who do by 68 percent to 30 percent in the survey. Democrats believe in evolution by 57 percent to 40 percent, as do independents by a 61 percent to 37 percent margin.

 

The poll also said that those who go to church often are far likelier to reject evolution than those who do not. Republicans are likelier than Democrats or independents to attend church services, according to Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll.

 

At the GOP's first presidential debate last month, the 10 candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raised their hands.

 

The Gallup survey, conducted May 21 to 24, involved telephone interviews with 1,007 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

 

 

 

 

Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

 

The data in this analysis were measured in the context of questions about the origin and development of human beings. It is apparent that many Americans simply do not like the idea that humans evolved from lower forms of life. This appears to be substantially based on a belief in the story of creation as outlined in the Bible -- that God created humans in a process that, taking the Bible literally, occurred about 10,000 years ago.

 

Americans who say they do not believe in the theory of evolution are highly likely to justify this belief by reference to religion, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between high levels of personal religiosity and doubts about evolution.

 

Being religious in America today is strongly related to partisanship, with more religious Americans in general much more likely to be Republicans than to be independents or Democrats. This relationship helps explain the finding that Republicans are significantly more likely than independents or Democrats to say they do not believe in evolution. When three Republican presidential candidates said in a May debate that they did not believe in evolution, the current analysis suggests that many Republicans across the country no doubt agreed.

 

 

 

The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans' religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend. That Republicans tend to be frequent churchgoers helps explain their doubts about evolution.

 

The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago.

 

 

I've summarized the responses to the surveys in the attached Word .doc:

 

[ATTACH]1617[/ATTACH]

[Sisyphus]

My views mostly correspond to Phil's. It's not about being an expert in everything. It's about listening to people who know what they're talking about.

 

The President is probably not going to make any decisions based on whether or not evolution is true (but he might!), but if he doesn't believe in evolution, then he necessarily thinks that he personally knows better than what science unambiguously has to say, which is certainly an attitude that could have disastrous consequences in other areas where he will be making important decisions.

 

So no, I would never vote for someone who said he didn't believe in evolution.

[CDarwin]

What scares me more is the thought of who gets to determine whether the person in question is "scientifically illiterate".

 

Well, you do. That was the point of all my parentheses. I'm just asking how important a politician's science stances are to whether or not you'd vote for them versus their economic or foreign policy stances.

[insane_alien]

i would rather a political leader make desicions based on what information is available and to listen to the experts in matters regarding their field. if they choose to not believe in evolution, what is to stop them ignoring the rest of science? i wouldn't expect them to necessarily have a deep understanding of science but at the very least a general idea of it and its principles should be mandatory.

[pcollins]

Not very. The intersection of the sciences and controversy is so small it's hard for me to get worked about about science as an 'issue.'