Call for a Presidential Debate on Science

At some point in this endless process of selecting a president, I believe there must be a presidential debate solely … Continued

At some point in this endless process of selecting a president, I believe there must be a presidential debate solely on the subject of science. Nothing could be more important for the survival of our planet.

We have reached a stage in our development where, to quote sociobiologist E.O. Wilson, humans are “the first species in the history of life to become a geological force.” Through industrial pollution, the destruction of our rain forests, over-fishing, over-hunting and so on, we can destroy just about all life on earth. This is a problem that cannot be solved without an understanding of science, most specifically biology.

A publication of the National Academy of Sciences states: “The evolution of all the organisms that live on earth today from ancestors that lived in the past is at the core of genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology, ecology, and other biological disciplines. It helps to explain the emergence of new infectious diseases, the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the agricultural relationships among wild and domestic plants and animals, the composition of the earth’s atmosphere, the molecular machinery of the cell, the similarities between human beings and other primates, and countless other features of the biological and physical world. As the great geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973, ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.’”

And yet, three Republican candidates have said they do not believe in it. Even George W. Bush believes “the jury is still out on evolution.” That someone this scientifically backward was elected to such a powerful position at such a critical time is perhaps the most astonishing anachronism in modern American political life. Such a thing must not be allowed to happen again. Given all of the scientific challenges that face us, we must elect a president with a basic understanding of 21st Century science.

The format of the debate could be very simple. I would suggest a panel of four or five scientists who specialize in a range of disciplines from microbiology and medicine to the composition of the earth’s atmosphere. I think if the scientists were famous, it would be more persuasive and attractive. A few Nobel prizewinners would lend credibility to the enterprise, but you would also need a scientific populist, someone like Gina Kolata, who writes about many aspects of science for the New York Times. Her job would be to translate and moderate if the scientific lingo became too arcane or the questioning too intense.

None of the candidates should know in advance what questions they might face. Not knowing the questions in advance would force them to study as much science as possible, and this in itself would be a marvelous thing. However, a statement would be read at the start stating that no one expects politicians to understand every aspect of the many scientific disciplines. The debate’s tone would try not to be adversarial, but cordial and educational. It could even be fun.
There is a secondary, but perhaps equally important reason for this debate, which is that no discussion of science can really occur without an understanding of the scientific method. This could not help but lead to a conversation on the uses of reason and logic in the making of political decisions versus the uses of faith.

There is, of course, a chance that some of the candidates would refuse to accept the invitation to this debate, but an RSVP in the negative would in and of itself tell us a great deal: why on earth (I chose those three preceding words with care) would a candidate turn his back on the opportunity to learn more about science?

Matthew Chapman is a writer, director and producer. His article “God or Gorilla” for Harper’s Magazine was selected for the book Best Science Writing 2007. He has written two books: “Trials Of The Monkey – An Accidental Memoir” and “40 Days and 40 Nights – Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin, and Other Oddities On Trial in Pennsylvania.” He is currently preparing a feature film, “The Ledge,” which he wrote and will direct.

  • Mobedda

    “Given all of the scientific challenges that face us, we must elect a president with a basic understanding of 21st Century science.”YES, YES, YES. I simply could not agree more, except that I would add that this individual must also respect genuine, peer-reviewed science [as opposed to un-reviewed pseudo-science, which this administration seems to have all the time in the world for as long as it supports their chicanery].

  • Bonnie Jackson

    What a great idea!I, for one, would also enjoy hearing someone say sincerely:”I’m not a scientist in this area, so I don’t know. Here’s where I’ll go to start learning more… As an informed citizen, I can tell you that here are some questions I think I should ask… Do you have some advice for me? Can you recommend scientists I should talk to? These are the scientists I currently consult about similar issues…”

  • Chaotician

    Wow, you must be a fanasty writer! These politicians in general rarely if ever speak about anything that they actually believe(assuming they actually have any beliefs), they are reflectors of their audience, million sided, and basically empty shells. It is expediant in their search for power and control to say whatever will give them the control they deserately need. On the other hand, most politicians, especially the current Republican variety, seem to see science only as a tool to manipulate the universe to create stuff for consumption and more control; they love their little or big war toys…remember Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney chortling over the MOAB! Politicians do not have the capacity to envision any of “purity” of Science that includes the scientific method, knowledge for its own sake, understanding reality, etc.; for them everything is a tool for power (useful) or not!

  • Clark

    Dear Matthew,I was quite excited by the idea of such a debate and then realized that it could never happen. Remember, the last time we had a public official who understood the science, the voters thought he was too stiff and geeky. Now he’s a Nobel Laureate. Anyway, the candidates wouldn’t come, the public wouldn’t listen, and the scientific community would be disgusted by the lowly level of discourse. No one would be well served. On the other hand, I do like the idea of a Jeopardy or It’s Academic type forum. This would be amusing!

  • BGone

    “Why do we need a presidential debate on science”?Because the law of gravity is just old non believing scientists guesswork and needs to be repealed.

  • TruthSayer

    Initial statement posted: “…‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.’” And yet, three Republican candidates have said they do not believe in it… That someone this scientifically backward was elected to such a powerful position at such a critical time is perhaps the most astonishing anachronism in modern American political life… Given all of the scientific challenges that face us, we must elect a president with a basic understanding of 21st Century science.”Not that I want any of these Republican, and so called, Christians running things, I do think that your premise is flawed. For TRUE SCIENCE must acknowledge the CREATOR. Otherwise it’s foolishness. I think the first thing to be understood is that SCIENCE and RELIGION, actually agree, and that those who TRULY hold to God’s principle’s acknowledge what science is telling us. It’s only those who refuse to see that they are the same who cause issues, be it the religous person or scientific person. This is what the Bible tells us; Gen 1:26-28 “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the EARTH and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”… Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the EARTH and subdue it(THE EARTH); have dominion over the fish of the sea, … and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” ” This verse shows us that GOD gave MANKIND the responsibility of MAINTAINING THE EARTH.Even when God comes back at the “end time”, one of God’s main issues is that He will have vengance on those who DESTROYED His EARTH. You see, God created the SCIENCE, thus it’s impossible for one who TRULY believes in God to refute the SCIENCE that HE CREATED. (It’s kind of like saying, I love Microsoft, but always disagree with and hate Bill Gates. Bill Gates and Microsoft are the same. And so is God and SCIENCE, for HE CREATED ALL and established EVERY SCIENTIFIC method that we mere humans try to figure out.)Thus we must understand that GOD actually warned MANKIND a few THOUSAND’s of years ago about this SCIENTIFIC GLOBAL WARMING matter. Luke 21: “25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” We just need to listen to what He said, since He is the CREATOR.Thus if we truly want to understand SCIENCE, we must first UNDERSTAND the CREATOR of the SCIENCE. Thus the only way to understand what is happening right now, is to EMBRACE the RELIGION/GOD or else they will never understand the science.

  • Russell D.

    I’d watch that debate!Sad isn’t it? None of the debates are fun anymore.I can’t wait for Stephen Colbert to get in on it. At least I’ll get a laugh from it.

  • Tim

    Truthsayer:Get real. The author is talking about science, not mythology. You’re still clinging to 2000+ year-old bedtime stories….

  • Gerry

    “Truth”sayerwhat drivel are you expounding? “God created science”? It gives me only a bitter laugh at the condition of the world and the US in particular consisting of people like you, dancing around the altar of ignorance and threatening everybody who is audacious enough to use his brain. Yes, we have to “fear God”, who “allegedly” (lol!) ordered Saul to kill all the Amalekites, and who punished Saul for not butchering everybody. God’s holocaust.Thomas Paine: “Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to ‘God’ to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters”. You know what holocaust means?No, I am not friendly to religion.

  • TruthSayer

    Tim: What sounds more to you like mythology? That millions of planets, beings, animals, plants, and everything else that exists, came from a “BIG BANG” out of nowhere??? (Yeah, that’s an intelligent way to say, I JUST DON’T KNOW what happened, so I’ll say something to get past what foolishness I don’t know.)I’m assuming you must have created your breakfast today, by yelling out loud. And then by magic, your food appeared before you.Tell you what, the next time you see a “big bang” happen, look me up. FOR IF YOU TRULY believe in SCIENCE, than you believe that whatever is done can be done again to prove it’s scientific validity. However, if you cannot create the same experiment again, than it’s just hear say. (that’s why it’s called a theory Well, here’s the “big bang” in action. God SPOKE and it was. That’s where your “big bang” theory comes from.You see, science (observation) can tell a lot of things, however, scientist sometimes want to throw out the truth about God, because they want to be able to control everything in their life. I mean think about it, you probably think you’re fairly intelligent, than why is it IMPOSSIBLE for us to CREATE HUMAN LIFE. I mean if an accidental “BANG” was able to create all of this, than us smart humans should be able to RECREATE that same accident, or do better. But we can’t. WHY?? Because there’s someone MORE INTELLIGENT that us.

  • Andrea

    Russell D,RE:ColbertYes.That is all.

  • Robert B.

    It’s an interesting thought, but how much scientific knowledge should be necessary to do well? Would a passing knowledge of most basic sciences be enough, or would the die-hard scientific minds want doctorate-level knowledge.In the end, I would trust that someone with an active mind who was willing to learn from others would be good enough regarding science. Usually, we can tell that from debates on other topics…

  • KennyBoy

    Calling for a debate on science is “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard come over a set of earphones”. Science IS a Debate, the only difference is that when a real scientist makes a statement of belief she also provides factual evidence supporting her position. Unlike our president whose mental process stops at “because I believe we need to…” and can carry his argument no further. And unlike our press who are too dumb, or too bought off to ask the admittedly complex question, “could you explain that?”, or even the simple question, “WHY?”.

  • Mr Mark

    Sadly, the only science that most Americans are concerned with are the sciences of cheap, tasteless beer, cable/sat TV reception…and new advances by the AirWick corporation in developing air fresheners that mask the odor of their incessant farting.Beyond that, who needs science? It’s not like it can cure diseases or anything.

  • KennyBoy

    Calling for a debate on science is “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard come over a set of earphones”. Science IS a Debate, the only difference is that when a real scientist makes a statement of belief she also provides factual evidence supporting her position. Unlike our president whose mental process stops at “because I believe we need to…” and can carry his argument no further. And unlike our press who are too dumb, or too bought off to ask the admittedly complex question, “could you explain that?”, or even the simple question, “WHY?”.

  • rafael

    Robert B:The only “scientific knowledge” a candidate would need is an understanding of what science is–a process we use to distinguish among alternative explanations by creating falsifiable ideas and testing them with data. Statements like “God created science” reflect the most fundamental ignorance about what science is–not an entity, not a body of information, but an objective method.If a candidate knew enough about science to trust the process as our best hope for gaining answers to questions about how the world works, and to rely on evidence provided by scientists knowledgeable in their particular fields, that would satisfy me.

  • Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia

    Dear Mr ChapmanYour idea of a “Presidential Debate on Science” and passing the “test” in flying colours as an essential criteria for public office may sound brilliant at first read, but in reality is somewhat simplistic. No country chooses politicians based on their knowledge of science. Would Albert Einstein have sought political office? Does an American President have to be an Albert Einstein to qualify for office? Most scientists are happy to do science and leave politics to politicians. Similarly politicians are happy to do politics and leave scientific work to scientists. Where would we be if the politicians of every country had to be scientific experts in all fields, religious leaders of all religions, etc etc. What you are demanding is that an American president/politician should be all knowing like God. Not even scientists claim expertise in areas other than their own.For the most part scientists work independently to do what needs to be done in the best interest of science. If political intervention is needed, I’m sure you are aware that politicians seek advise and input from those who are experts in their respective fields. So if a politician needs information on science, he/she/the government commissions an expert in the field to provide him/her/the government with the best available information. Scientists and scientific advisory committees advise the government/lawmaker (if a law is required for the benefit of the public). Experts are commissioned by the (politicians)government to look into any matter that is of public interest.From my personal experience I can say that the introduction of mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid, to decrease in the incidence of neural tube defects (NTD), was done without the politicians having to be experts in the science of folic acid or its role in the prevention of NTD, and yet their role was indispensable in commissioning the lawmakers and accepting the recommendation of the lawmaker (FDA in the US, SACN and FSA in the UK, and FSANZ in Australia and New Zealand), who in turn got the advise of their own scientists, scientific opinion of other experts, public consultations to get the input of all stakeholders etc. So Mr Chapman, it might be a good idea to reconsider your recommendation, “Presidential Debate on Science” based on how things actually work on the ground.Soja John Thaikattil

  • E favorite

    Great idea, Mathew, and rather than say “never happen,” I’d say, “Maybe next time.”I do think it’s possible to have a science segment during a debate covering other essential topics, such as foreign policy, health care, immigration. Maybe instead of calling it “science,” it could be called “technology” or “medical advancements.” These are less scary terms in today’s “faith and values” soaked society, and are subjects that candidates might feel they can take on without losing certain constituencies. There’s no influential lobbying group that’s actively against technological and medical advancement, is there? Perhaps candidates presenting their views without emphasizing the “S” word, is a needed first step to make it permissible for future candidates to state one’s unabashed acceptance of evolution.

  • Tonio

    Chapman’s book about the intelligent design battle in Dover is an excellent read. His proposal for a science debate would be useful to reveal two things about candidates – how much they know or don’t know about science, and how much value they place on the empirical method.

  • Tim

    Truthsayer,You’re greatly confusing Faith and Reason in ways that aren’t a foundation for an effective argument.First, anyone who uses Wikipedia to prove a point is pretty much going to lose. To be more effective, choose a professional source for information. Then again, Wikipedia is right up your alley, having been written and compiled by lots of different people with lots of different backgrounds over long periods of time.Second, our inability to recreate a big bang doesn’t preclude it from being science; indeed, that’s why it’s still called a theory (which no one is debating)! Besides, just because we can’t do something NOW doesn’t mean that we’ll never be able to do it, and as such makes no sense in saying that it isn’t scientifically valid. Would you say that dinosaurs didn’t exist because we can’t recreate THEM? Third, you don’t understand the motivation of scientists. They don’t want to control everything in their lives; instead, they want to understand the natural world around them. Fourth, and similar to a point in #2, our inability to create human life is not an indication of someone more intelligent than we are, just an indication that our knowledge and ability haven’t progressed far enough to do it. One could have said that about going to the moon, that we could never get there, thus proving someone or something is more intelligent. Well, that point is moot now, isn’t it? And won’t the “inability to create human life” point be moot in the future? I think you suspect it will, since you chose to say “CREATE HUMAN LIFE” and not “CREATE LIFE,” which has pretty much already been done.Fifth, you yourself believe in that which cannot be recreated, if you believe your bible and its stories. I mean, you believe that those “miracles” actually happened, just because someone wrote down that it did? If I wrote the same thing into a Wikipedia entry, would you believe it? Tell you what – when you can recreate the whole “loaves and fishes” thing, let me know. Chew on this: instead of god creating the big bang, maybe the big bang created god. He’s born from the fire and explosion, can’t do much since it’s too damn hot, chills for a few billion years, and when the conditions are just right, takes credit for it all. I mean, where was he before the opening verses of Genesis? And what was he doing? If you ask me, he could have waited a lot less and gotten this party started much earlier.

  • Robert B.

    To Rafael –You wrote: “Statements like “God created science” reflect the most fundamental ignorance about what science is–not an entity, not a body of information, but an objective method.”Would you accept the statement “God made man capable of pursuing science” as being more accurate? :)

  • Chasmosaur

    Great concept, never gonna happen.I know many scientists who don’t have a problem with religion, and many devout Christians who can reconcile their faith with current scientific knowledge. (I’ve yet to meet members of another religion who seem to fight against evolution as staunchly as fundamentalist Christians.)However, all those folks are middle of the road. And that population rarely makes headlines (unless, of course, the media is looking to coin a new demographic like Soccer Moms or NASCAR Dads).The people who get attention are those like our fellow poster Truthsayer here – who staunchly adhere to a Bible-centric source of their scientific knowledge. Or those scientists or pro-science advocates who are staunchly anti-religion like Christopher Hitchens. Because it makes for good press.As a former paleontologist who still volunteers at museums, I am frequently accosted by those who don’t believe in evolution who actively attempt to goad me into argument. I find this totally disrespectful. If I went into a church and approached an obviously devout member and said: “*I* don’t believe in your God and religion – what do you have to say about that?”, I would be considered rude, insensitive, and completely disrespectful. And possibly arrested for not honoring freedom of religion, who knows.In my younger years, I probably would have responded. But now, my response to those who act this way is that everyone may believe what they like, and whether or not you believe in evolution or that the rock or fossil I’m holding in my hand is actually a few hundred million years old, you can’t deny that it’s actually a pretty cool looking thing (usually).(Oh – my religious status? Somewhere between a deist and a weak agnostic, raised in a culturally but non-participating Roman Catholic household.)Why fundamentalists can’t grasp the fact that most scientists are looking for the mechanics of the world around it and not the answers to the philosophical “Why are we here?” questions I don’t understand. I like to say that I’m looking for a Creator’s fingerprints.I’m sorry that some are threatened by the thought man probably arose from ape-like creatures, or even the fact that the root of mankind is most likely in Africa (I am less charitable towards those who hold the latter opinion as it smacks of bigotry on top of being rigidly dogmatic.)But that doesn’t change the fact that modern biological science is based on these tenets. So if you don’t believe in evolution, show me your commitment to the concept. Don’t get a flu shot or bother with antibiotics other than penicillin when you get a bacterial infection. Because according to your belief, bacteria and viruses haven’t changed since the writing of the Bible.

  • E favorite

    Matthew – you was robbed! Just featured here for one day, with no photo to show what a dish you are! (I know, I met you at the AAI conference.)I had to resort to Google to find your essay tonight. Bummer. Next time demand more exposure. You deserve it.

  • Carl I.

    The page is not rendering properly in IE7 — the On Faith summary banner obscures the last paragraph and part of Mr. Chapman’s bio.

  • John Griffith (Bright)

    Switch to Firefox or Safari for your browser.

  • Art Hanes

    Why is it that whenever someone uses a predominance of caps in their messages, 95% you know they’re not dealing w/a full deck? I mean, I do appreciate the heads up saying saying, “I’m a CRANK, you can promptly skip over anything I should write and move onto the next bit of text.”I like the idea of a science debate, doubt more than a few of the GOP candidates would attend, though I’d be curious to find out, should it ever see the light of day, who would agree to come.

  • Will

    Truthsayer: What sounds more to you like mythology? That millions of planets, beings, animals, plants, and everything else that exists, came from a “BIG BANG” out of nowhere??? (Yeah, that’s an intelligent way to say, I JUST DON’T KNOW what happened, so I’ll say something to get past what foolishness I don’t know.)I’m sorry, but weren’t all religions started by an attempt to explain away the world around us at a time when we couldn’t possibly comprehend it. Big bang may end up being proved untrue, but only because another theory comes along with more scientifically collected evidence to back it up. Your mythological explanation on the other hand never attempted to use evidence to support itself. Instead, you are expected to believe it in the absence of evidence. In fact, you consider the ability to hold such an unsupported belief a virtue- faith. Any belief based on faith conflicts with the scientific method, where belief is based on evidence obtained through observation.Also, saying repeatedly that you need religion to understand science is not proof that you need religion to understand science, in much the same way that repeating A=B is not much of an argument for the notion that A=B. And “Truthsayer”? Seriously? I’ve always been taught that if someone has to say that they are telling you the truth, then they are probably lying.

  • Matt Dooley

    What would a Presidential candidate learn from a debate with scientists? A lot of that would depend on the opinions of the scientists involved.This story highlights one of the policy problems in the US and the world today. Science isn’t supposed to be about being famous, or about pushing a political agenda. Science is supposed to be about facts.Is evolution proven? I believe it’s still called the Theory of Evolution. Is it a proven fact that man is the main driver of climate change? CO2 Forcing is a miniscule portion of the factors that influence the environment.In an age where any politician can buy scientists to support their opinion, a debate on “science” would be another unfortunate example of scientists losing their focus.

  • Dr.R.P.

    This might be fun to watch, but it would more likely be very frustrating for anyone with a science background. I mean, you are talking about people (politicians) who are OLYMPIC CLASS when it comes to taking questions and morphing there answers into something they wanted you to ask. The format could not be “friendly”, because the scientifically ignorant ones would use that to their advantage. On the contrary, the moderator would have to practice up on “You did not answer the question, please try again”.And of course, the REALLY ignorant ones (for instance, the ones who do not believe in evolution) would just use it as a preaching pulpit. This would tick off the scientifically inclined watching, but it would encourage the flat earthers.I suspect that most nobel prize winners would probably see it the same way and decline to participate, but that does not mean it should not be tried.

  • Andrew

    I tend to agree in principle with the idea that the President need not be a scientist in order to understand the value of science. Scientists and leaders, although not mutually exclusive, need not be one and the same to allow science at the forefront of policy development and decisions. Ultimately, the President must listen to scientists in order to influence the decision-making process with an understanding that science will make or break our ability to sustain as a country, a species, or a planet. I suppose the trappings of “old time religion” often force the President to believe that he/she must abandon science for the embrace of millions of voters, and I guess for some candidates that’s an easy tradeoff. I just hope that they realize it is a temporary benefit with dire long term consequences. I’m pro-religious freedom, until the point that practice of such impedes on the ability of our society to continue forth on the basis of rational principles.A QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WHO ARE ANTI-SCIENCE: I also agree that folks are entitled to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit…but even they must wonder that if (as they believe) a higher power made us, imbued us with analytical minds capable of looking deeply into the substance and processes of our world, how can the truth we find there be so wrong?

  • Jeffrey K. Wilson

    Evolution is a theory, an unproven theory. It is amazing that Darwin, with no knowledge of the complexities of the single cell, could still have so many diehard supporters today. Creation is an alternative explanation for the origin of this planet, and the scientific evidence of the worldwide flood described in the Bible is everywhere.

  • Brandon

    AN interesting idea. The republicons would all decline, knowing they would either making asses of themselves, or totally alienate “the base.” (Which is ironically what al qaeda means in translation) Studys show that huge numbers of Americans cannot even tell you what the scientific method is, let alone have a rudimentary understanding of modern science. republicons have made a science of their own in courting and pandering to the most ignorant among us.

  • Nelson

    What is there to debate?

  • Nelson

    What is there to debate?

  • Robert

    Tim, You make some excellent points which I’m sure TruthSayer will ignore. You mention “silly arguments by people who have the equivalent mindset of thinking the earth is flat and at the center of the universe.”TruthSayer’s quotes Psalm 104: ” 19 He appointed the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down.”Does the sun really go down? Perhaps and only if the earth was flat. What strikes me is that you have educated people still following that book as Factual rather than Inspriational. And hence they quote from a source that does believe the earth is flat.

  • Mike Nimzo

    Republican presidential candidates discuss science – that’s freakin HILARIOUS

  • Robert

    Tim, You make some excellent points which I’m sure TruthSayer will ignore. You mention “silly arguments by people who have the equivalent mindset of thinking the earth is flat and at the center of the universe.”TruthSayer’s quotes Psalm 104: ” 19 He appointed the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down.”Does the sun really go down? Perhaps and only if the earth was flat. What strikes me is that you have educated people still following that book as Factual rather than Inspriational. And hence they quote from a source that does believe the earth is flat.

  • Dr.R.P.

    Mr. Wilson:Scientific theories can never be “proven”, only supported or disproven by available data. If the data is consistent with the theory (or better yet, is predicted by the theory), then your data supports it. If you data is inconsistent with the theory, then your data disproves the theory, or at least subjects it to modifications. Evolution had an absolutely huge amount of observational and experimental data to support it. And believe me, if scientist found evidence against it, they would be all over it (finding reliable data disproving evolution would get one a nobel prize for sure).Creationism was something made up thousands of years ago by people who knew nothing of science. If you think that there is evidence for a great flood but none for evolution, your ignorant of the facts. (although if we keep warming up the planet, we may yet get that worlwide flood you speak about).

  • mike nimzo

    “Evolution is a theory, an unproven theory.”this ignorance is unbelievable….

  • Richard

    Right on, Mr Chapman, right on.To me, an individual that denies evolution, does show a level of contempt and ignorance on science that must automatically disqualify him for presidency. It shows lacking capability to a discourse based on facts. And the consequences of that are transparently displayed with the current administration, that is: ignoring information and basing decisions purely on ‘gut’ feeling.That must change.

  • carolina thompson

    Do have candidates debate on new and different subjects. Obviously politics are molded to whatever they want the public to hear…..

  • carolina thompson

    Do have candidates debate on new and different subjects. Obviously politics are molded to whatever they want the public to hear…..

  • carolina thompson

    Do have candidates debate on new and different subjects. Obviously politics are molded to whatever they want the public to hear…..

  • carolina thompson

    Do have candidates debate on new and different subjects. Obviously politics are molded to whatever they want the public to hear…..

  • George Evanick

    Matthew,I believe it’s the scientific community that is quintessential for the design, manufacturing and deployment of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. After all, doesn’t science also tell us that anyone who doesn’t buy into the Darwinian Evolution nonsense should be considered delusional? Therefore, doesn’t that logic also tell us that backward religious folk aren’t smart enough to understand atomic physics and apply it? A self righteous scientist expressing concern for humanity is laughable. Contemporary science isn’t advancing; it’s regressing and gradually morphing into just another rigid, impersonal, condemnatory religion, in which anyone who questions the “consensus” is castigated as “not credible” or a “denier” or “delusional” or “backwards”. It’s sad to witness you, Richard Dawkins, Al Gore and others make a mockery of something that was once respected by many. I know there are many good and respectable scientists out there trying to improve our lives and protect the environment, but we don’t hear from them often because they are too busy with the real work of science and don’t have much time boring the rest of us with political claptrap.Sincerely,George Evanick

  • George Evanick

    Matthew,I believe it’s the scientific community that is quintessential for the design, manufacturing and deployment of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. After all, doesn’t science also tell us that anyone who doesn’t buy into the Darwinian Evolution nonsense should be considered delusional? Therefore, doesn’t that logic also tell us that backward religious folk aren’t smart enough to understand atomic physics and apply it? A self righteous scientist expressing concern for humanity is laughable. Contemporary science isn’t advancing; it’s regressing and gradually morphing into just another rigid, impersonal, condemnatory religion, in which anyone who questions the “consensus” is castigated as “not credible” or a “denier” or “delusional” or “backwards”. It’s sad to witness you, Richard Dawkins, Al Gore and others make a mockery of something that was once respected by many. I know there are many good and respectable scientists out there trying to improve our lives and protect the environment, but we don’t hear from them often because they are too busy with the real work of science and don’t have much time boring the rest of us with political claptrap.Sincerely,George Evanick

  • Chasmosaur

    To Mr. Wilson @ 11:09 am:Your comment has finally made me realize once and for all that science needs to change its nomenclature. It will, however, be difficult to do so, since using the word “theory” pretty much defines what makes science different from religious faith.When scientists use the word “theory”, it is because our knowledge is always changing and shifting. We refer to things as theories because we always try to refine and expand our knowledge. However, there are some “theories” that have stood up to repeated testing and observations that they are currently accepted as fact. (As opposed to religious belief, which is usually revealed and generally considered set.)Gravitation. Special Relativity. Particle Physics. And yes, Evolution.Evolution as it is worked with today is considered Darwinian because Charles Darwin proposed the root of the theory: change over time in populations of a species are caused because differences or mutations within a subset of individuals make it more likely they will survive predation or other environmental forces. To say that we adhere to Darwin’s original concepts is ridiculous – advances in scientific methodology have refined his basic tenets over the years.To say that because we refer to it as “evolutionary theory” that it is not “true” is a semantic game. However, it appears we will have to play that semantic game.Many scientists respect your language and religion – why can’t you respect the language and customs of science?

  • Skip Lively

    While we’re at it, why not give all the candidates a publicly televised SAT test?I feel as though this idea gets two rather major points wrong. The first is the role of the president. The second is the flavor of science.Would it be beneficial to this country if we had a President who had a decent grasp on science? Sure. It would also be helpful if they understand the equations involved in economics, knew the history of the European Union, spoke at least two languages, and could competently discuss international relations theory.All of those would be helpful, and I don’t think any of those are ridiculous requests. But none of them are the primary role of the president, and none of them stand alone. We have a National Science Advisor. We have a Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. We have a Secretary of State and innumerable diplomats and foreign policy advisors. We have a Surgeon General, an Attorney General, and an Inspector General.I would argue that it is far more important that a presidential candidate of the capability of understanding a concept which is explained to him (or her), the humility to listen and understand, the wisdom to solicit multiple expert viewpoints, and the determination and clarity to make a decision based on that knowledge.I doubt any of those traits would be evident in the debate you suggest.As regards my second point: would you really wish science to become so political? You’re suggesting a “debate”. None of these candidates are going to have the knowledge to deal with the true debates of science. No matter how much they prep, all they’re going to be able to do is spout rhetoric and regurgitate sides. That will only serve to deepen the mindset that science can be put on a political platform as a subjective, partisan issue.In the end, that will benefit no one.

  • RC WEDEL

    NOTHING COULD BE MORE FUN, OR MORE REVEALING. iT WOULD BE AN HISTORIC BREAKTHRU, ALMOST BEYOND REAL EXPECTAIONS.

  • RC WEDEL

    NOTHING COULD BE MORE FUN, OR MORE REVEALING. iT WOULD BE AN HISTORIC BREAKTHRU, ALMOST BEYOND REAL EXPECTAIONS.

  • james singer

    Neato! It would give Fred Thompson an opening to say “I’m not a scientist, but I’ve played one on TV….”

  • Paul Marques

    Fabulous idea – but if implemented the results would likely be really depressing. Lawyers, preachers and real estate tycoons are not among the scientific literati. Chapman’s point of course.

  • james singer

    Neato! It would give Fred Thompson an opening to say “I’m not a scientist, but I’ve played one on TV….”

  • Chrissie Street

    I was once told by a thoughtful woman that one cannot argue with ignorance. I’ve held that thought for years. We are in the grip of a society that has lost it’s collective mind. A society that does not believe in evidence. A socety that is on an extremely dangerous path to extinction. We seem absolutely unable to recognize our own personal destructive habits. Science could save us. Science reports on fact not gut feeling. Science has been telling us for years that the planet is in danger. We refuse to listen. We desperatly need leaders who believe in science. Brave and resposible leaders who will work for the good of mankind not for personal gain.

  • Dan

    Great article! As a grad student in physics, I think a debate on scientific issues would be a great thing for our country. We’d be better off f more policy decisions were based on sound science.Maybe you’re intentionally downplaying it… but readers may be interested to know that Matthew Chapman is Charles Darwin’s great-grandson:

  • steve

    The truth is we don’t nee to wait for this science only forum. We just need to get the mainsteam media folks and others at political rallies to start asking some science questions. Nobody is suggesting that scientific knowlege is the only criteria to be President, but while we are asking candidates about what they would do with taxes, why not ask what they think of global warming, stem-cell research, the big-bang theory etc.

  • castanea

    It is sad to read some of you sensible, critical thinking people trying to argue with folks who believe, for example, that evidence of a great biblical flood is everywhere.Look, these fundamentalist types don’t exist in a world in which facts matter. They believe in mythology and seek random bits and pieces of reality to support their myths. I’ve read fundamentalists claiming that fossils of fish found thousands of feet above sea level is indication that there was at one time a great flood.I’ve also read fundamentalists claim that the Grand Canyon was carved by receding floodwaters.Yet I’ve never heard any fundy address where all the floodwaters came from in the first place, nor where they receded to. If God wanted to kill all life on earth by drowning it, he’d have to cover the entire face of the globe with upwards of 10,000 feet of water, given that people and animals would have been able to retreat to such areas and sustain themselves for long enough to outlast the flood.That’s a lot of water to appear out of nowhere, and then disappear.So, really, let’s start treating fundamentalists as the loons that they are. Trying to reason with them, trying to use logic and fact, is futile.

  • fudd

    Rather than a debate, I’d be happy if candidates were just required to take a series of tests on subjects such as current events, history and, yes, science, and disclose the results. An IQ test would be useful, too — public disclosure of that might have been enough to keep the the truly dumb politicians like Bush II and Reagan out of the White House.

  • Alphysicist

    It is an interesting suggestion, but it may be problematic as well. The problem is not only scientific, it is also what judgments we choose to make based on science. For example: even if we know that we are endangering the planet by polluting, we may not be willing to make the sacrifice, of not using our cars, since we have gotten use to all that comfort. Science, and scientific method, and all that is also considerably harder to define than one might think. Actually, scientists themselves are often unaware of the fact that there really is no such thing as a scientific method (Feyerabend argued that it may be too a hindrance to science itself, if there was one).As an example, there is the case of Doctor Semmelweis. About halfway through the 19th century he suggested to the doctors of Europe to wash their hands between autopsies and child deliveries, to prevent infections (mainly puerpueral fever). His arguments were statistical, and the scientific circles of the time asked him for an explanation based on scientific method. He had none (the germ theory was developed almost half a century later). His enlightened peers accused him of being backward, since they thought that attributing significance to death (dead bodies) indicates a superstitious attitude.I think the issue is: common sense is often good enough. Before the Enlightenment no one would have been stupid enough to do an autopsy, and then ten minutes later, a delivery. One can arrive at that without knowing too much science. Regarding the environment, regardless what scientists say, there has to be a limit to consumption. Four cars per family, and using them to go every fifty yards goes against any type of common sense judgment.

  • Dave B

    Chasmosaur: You make a very good point about respecting the nomenclature. I do, however, feel you are requesting something very difficult to achieve. The use of specific terms that vary in meaning is very common in human communication and ones ability to process them depends on ones knowledge of the context. The use of “a bit” as an imprecise term to describe a small quantity and the use of “a bit” to describe a discrete memory location in a digital circuit are both valid. Fortunately enough people are aware of both contexts that there is seldom confusion between them.However, without at least a modicum of education in the scientific method it is likely that one will fail to grasp the level of evidence required to promote an unfounded hypothesis to the status of a theory. To those people unequipped with that contextual knowledge it is very likely that far too much weight will be placed on the fact that a theory MAY not be true no matter how much supporting evidence is stacked up in its favor. Particularly when the person concerned is convinced, however mistakenly, that the theory being true implies a contradiction of some deeply-held belief.

  • Terry

    I’m laughing out loud at the superstitious kooks still clinging to their ancient ghost stories who are posting here.I’m not an American, is this type of backward thinking that common there?You can pray for me, I’ll think for all of us.

  • Terry

    I’m laughing out loud at the superstitious kooks still clinging to their ancient ghost stories who are posting here.I’m not an American, is this type of backward thinking that common there?You can pray for me, I’ll think for all of us.

  • robert e grossman

    I think that only Richardson and McCain would have the brains and the guts to appear on such a discussion.

  • Mad Okie

    Heres a better idea… how about a debate on the CONSTITUTION? since that is what their job to uphold consists of…

  • Terry Davis

    Algea were the first to be a geological force where do we get these morons? Environmentalists typically come from the lowest rung of science and the news promotes the scariest stories. This is like the boy who cried wolf. We probably do have problems, but the people talking are morons.If you want to save energy, adjust your thermostat — it’s like a factor of ten times more significant than any thing else you could do.How about the term “zero emmision vehicle”… Umm, last I checked the coal plants providing the juice polluted.There is a God, by the way and He says…

  • Michael Duffy

    Just so you all know that there are many scientists that support Creationism here are just a few:Dr. John Baumgardner – Geophysicist and “continental drift” expert who has worked for the renowned Los Alamos National Laboratories in New MexicoDr. Ian Macreadie – principal research scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)Dr. Danny Faulkner – Astronomer – Associate Professor at the University of South CarolinaDr. Walter Veith – Zoologist – Chair of Zoology at the University of the Western Cape (Republic of South Africa)Dr. Keith Wanser – Physics – Professor of Physics at California State University, FullertonDr. David Menton – Anatomist – former Associate Professor of Anatomy at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MissouriDr. D. Russell Humphreys – Nuclear Physicist – researched thermonuclear fusion energy for the US government, at Sandia National Laboratories, New MexicoThe list could go on and on. Most of you have not been exposed to a scientific viewpoint that supports a six day creation. You automatically make the assumption that if it is written in the Bible it is religion or faith and not scientific. Here is an interesting book if you have not been exposed to a scientific “creationist” viewpoint:Creation: Fact of Life – How Real Science reveals the Hand of God by Dr. Gary ParkerPlease I am no expert in science only a common man seeking the truth. Please take the time to truly study this issue.

  • YOYO

    Why are we disputing the need for such a scientific discussion with people running for office?

  • A Handle

    Alphysicist – good post.From an opinion piece in today’s WSJThe great philosopher Waylon Jennings once said, “There ain’t no right way to do the wrong thing.” Interestingly, this is an article by Dick Armey who was Minority er… Majority Leader for a long time and is now head of some yahoo foundation.Yes, it’s all a matter of context and what people will do with information.

  • Ricardo Bánffy

    Truthsayer:You are confusing a whole lot of stuff.And, about evolution, we do it all the time. Look at how we shaped all other animals we depend on or just like to have hanging around. Do you think a modern cow would “evolve” on its own to the highly specialized animal we have today in countless farms around the world? Do you think a Shih-Tzu could evolve naturally from a wolf?Just replace our human interference with natural selection (which obviously exists) and you have evolution as Charles Darwin described.While I don’t reject the idea of a God, I certainly know we don’t have enough evidence to say whether He exists or not. You make a nice and compelling argument that may influence some religious nuts that they should take good care of Earth or else be punished by a supernatural being. Did you do that on purpose?

  • Patrick

    This is fine except politicians lie for a living and will not speak honestly about such things as science because, it will put off their evangelic’s that have a litmus test of ignorance of science, in embracing religion, which requires ignoring modern science.Go figure how these people ever graduated from College without learning science and embraci ng something that is obviously less than explainable in modern times.This becomes the problem when people make the Bible an Historical document instead of a religious document. Context is everything!Patrick

  • Tom Mooney

    A science debate is a profound idea.Sadly I think the candidates would be quite reluctant to engage in an unfamiliar forum where “canned responses”would be unavailable.I am up on Capitol Hill daily working on promulgating information on life extension issues and,if you are interested Iwould be glad to pursue the matter further.

  • Tom Mooney

    A science debate is a profound idea.Sadly I think the candidates would be quite reluctant to engage in an unfamiliar forum where “canned responses”would be unavailable.I am up on Capitol Hill daily working on promulgating information on life extension issues and,if you are interested Iwould be glad to pursue the matter further.

  • Tom Mooney

    A science debate is a profound idea.Sadly I think the candidates would be quite reluctant to engage in an unfamiliar forum where “canned responses”would be unavailable.I am up on Capitol Hill daily working on promulgating information on life extension issues and,if you are interested Iwould be glad to pursue the matter further.

  • Edmund

    I love the idea in theory. Having a presidential debate specifically focused on science would at least answer some fundamental questions as to what the politicians believe on non-rhetoric issues. I.E. There are many many issues that it would be refreshing to actually hear politicians talk about where they stand other than the usual issues of abortion, terrorism, faith, geo-political economics, taxes, education, and so on. I’m so tired of hearing politicians talk about standard issues they all kind of run together. I could have sworn they were trying to pass a law increasing taxes on 3rd trimester fetuses. Or incorporate faith-based learning into schools…Oh wait that one was real. In reality I do agree with some of the comments specifically about who would watch this? The average American won’t. I do think the scientific community would watch simply because even though it is utter lacking in depth, it’s as close as they’ll ever get. But I would be surprised if more than 1 or 2 candidates from both sides show up, simply because there is no benefit for them. Most Americans are not scientifically minded to put it kindly so if a candidate appears scientifically knowledge that could work against him or her, as terrible as that may be. Unless something very strange happens the status-quote in be maintained and the screaming voices of fear and panic, whether it be about preservation of life (pre and post birth), financial, or the desire for a conformity of belief; will continue to run this country and will have the ear of our leaders. For reason and thought are unnecessary luxuries, and science is simply an afterthought.Albert Einstein — Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

  • Chasmosaur

    To Bobbuntruck:I probably didn’t make myself clear.I don’t think scientists actually NEED to change the nomenclature. It’s pretty descriptive and apt, as is. I totally agree with you it’s a problem of sloppy terminology within the non-scientific public.However, those who support Creationism or ID always latch onto the concept of evolution being a “theory”, and extrapolate that it therefore must not actually be true. Sometimes I think if we as scientists (I’m a former paleontologist) found a more neutral word than theory to use in our arguments (instead of explaining repeatedly how the “Theory” of evolution is well documented, which is only ignored), then perhaps we might give one less item of reasoning in their arguments.

  • Craig

    TruthSayer posted: “Tell you what, the next time you see a “big bang” happen, look me up.”Will do. And the next time you see the Creator make a universe in 6 days, look *me* up. :)

  • skeptimal

    I love the idea of a forum that explores the candidates’ understanding of the scientific process, but I’m having trouble imagining a format that would not result in attacks on science itself. Both parties use science as a shield when it suits them and as a punching bag when it doesn’t. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have openly questioned whether science itself can be trusted, as if science was a hostile political party instead of a process of discovery.Any attempt to engage candidates in a scientific discussion is going to result in accusations that scientists are just the “intellectually elite” who are out of touch with the people.

  • BGone

    As much as I dislike disputing the great minds of our time, what you have written comes up short in the most fundamental way, survival.The strategy for survival of all species is population. Critters reproduce to the limit of their capabilities. Humans must do likewise. The lemming are our closest cousins. They reproduce until the food supply runs out. Then a great leader arises whom they follow in a stampede over the cliff.There are exceptions. Rats for example control their reproduction, match their population to food supply. Humans are not yet evolved to the level of rats. His holiness the pope has decreed to be sinful, birth control, gay marriage and sex outside marriage, things that allow humans to match life support capabilities with new life brought into the world while remaining human. Thus the Christian society is something less than that of rat society, when it comes to survival, piety, gold and political power being way ahead of rats but lacking the order found at the rathaus.No, humans don’t really have the capability to destroy the earth. They do have the game plan to destroy themselves alone and it’s moving right along. Since we have chosen to follow the dictates of religion operators then maybe scientists should just shut up, turn all over to men of great faith and just say our prayers.

  • Alex

    TruthsayerI am the voice of your God and I command you to shut up and listen to the people using their minds unraveling the mechanics of this celestial puzzle.I tell you now you are wrong and they are right.And Truthsayer do not doubt me or my word.

  • Ned

    BGONEActually there are many species that somehow manage to maintain (or used to until humans screwed things up for them) steady population density. Kangaroos for example can hit pause (sort of) on the development of undelivered offspring and do so depending on the available resources. So many things have developed strategies that don’t involve runaway expansion.

  • Molly, NYC

    Great idea, but the Republicans wouldn’t bother attending it. They pay some lip-service to science, but it’s clearly not something they value, and the simpletons among them who think “the jury’s still out” on evolution, etc. commonly believe that the consensus among scientists to the contrary is some sort of conspiracy.

  • Pablo

    That would be great and the first thing they should debate about is whether the Theory of Evolution is science. It is not but instead it is a godless philosophy.

  • Molly, NYC

    “Please I am no expert in science . . . Please take the time to truly study this issue.”Michael Duffy, those people who ARE experts in science got that way because they DID take the time to truly study this issue. Look, whatever it is you do for a living, you probably do it better than someone who does something else all day. For example, guys who fix cars are better mechanics than police officers are; chefs know their way around a kitchen better than office workers do. Makes sense, no?So why is it so tough to accept that scientists are better at science than clergymen?I don’t know what website you got the list of scientists who support creationism from, but unpack it a little: 7 men, only 4 of whom are in the life sciences (i.e., the branch where evolution is relevant)–and they had to go all over the planet to find these guys. (I live in a 100-unit apartment building and I could find at least twice that number of scientists who DO support evolution without even going outdoors.) Moreover, if you were to ask them WHY they believe in creationism, you’d find they believe it for religious reasons, or are getting paid to support it, or both; scientific reasons just don’t enter into it.Furthermore, you might ask yourself why supporters of creationism (or “intelligent design,” as they try to style it) address none of their efforts into convincing scientists of its validity? Why do they only try to convince people to whom science is a lot of mumbo-jumbo?Obviously, because the latter can’t tell the difference between science and a lot of baloney with some big words tossed in, and the former can. Even if science isn’t your thing, it’s in your interest to know when someone’s trying to con you. And someone who’s trying to get any sort of public policy based on creationism is a con-artist, plain and simple.

  • B-Man

    Yes! Yes! Yes!Great idea–Do it now!

  • BGone

    Ned:Rats are smarter than evangelicals. Kangaroos are a given in that arena along with possums and skunks, except for Peppy Le Pew.

  • Prakash Chenjeri

    While the proposition about a Presidential Debate on Science sounds good, I am skeptical about value of the effort if the candidates come with ‘prepared’ and rehearsed answers. It has become fashionable in some circles to take cheap shots at science and make straw man arguments, especially with regard to the tentative nature of scientific conclusions. Instead it is critical, and wiser, to lay the foundations of science and scientific approach to things at the school levels. If young minds are exposed to a rigorous and healthy science curriculum, then we do not have to contemplate this nightmare of a scenario when they are ready to lead the world’s most powerful country.Thanks.

  • Arminius

    BGone,Careful there! Skunks are rodents, relatives of rats. Nothing against Peppy, though. And don’t forget the most famous marsupial of them all: Pogo Possum. Remember “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”? Note that he is officially the State Possum of the State of Georgia, USA.

  • Eric

    “why on earth…would a candidate turn his back on the opportunity to learn more about science?”The cynic in me responds “because learning about science gets him neither votes nor money, and possibly loses him the former.”It’s sad, but tough to refute in a day where all major Republican candidates vow their adherence to creationism in a nationally publicized debate for the sake of appearing relevant to their constituencies.-disgruntled scientist

  • Vercinget

    Now Im still living after so much intent to block me I will say only a comment. Which is the politic to introdue itself in the grounf of the science? This is the anwer. No legitimaty at all.

  • Joel

    As a scientist, my initial reaction was that I thought this was an excellent idea – I’d love to know what the various candidates think. It does seem very important for the people making political decisions to have a basic understanding of what a human is, what the planet is and how it works and what will happen to it when we do certain things, etc. But, would such a “debate” actually work toward that goal? I’m not so sure.I think Skip Lively’s post at 11:54 am Oct 29 is spot-on. While it’d be ideal for a president to be well-versed on all the major issues that s/he’ll have to deal with, it’s far more important that s/he is wise enough to choose competent advisors and to seek out and listen to multiple viewpoints. The candidate’s ability to do this would probably not come across well at all in such a “debate”, and indeed it might simply deepen the public perception that scientific truths can be decided by political debates.

  • JennyAtchison

    “Calling for a debate on science is “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard come over a set of earphones”. Science IS a Debate, the only difference is that when a real scientist makes a statement of belief she also provides factual evidence supporting her position. Unlike our president whose mental process stops at “because I believe we need to…” and can carry his argument no further. And unlike our press who are too dumb, or too bought off to ask the admittedly complex question, “could you explain that?”, or even the simple question, “WHY?”. THANK YOU, Kennyboy-you could NOT have captured my thoughts on this blog more succinctly, all the way down to the stupid, sycophantic press, who really ARE TOO STUPID TO EVEN ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION WHY.

  • Alexy

    There was a recent news story about how students got something like 1 hour per week of science education thanks to No Child Left Behind.And then we have people who can’t seem to disentangle reality and science from belief and faith. I think in a world like this, we need to know if our candidates are reasonably well-informed as to even BASIC science. I don’t think it should entirely be a pop quiz, though. Give them a pointer to the IPCC summary (ie UN climate change) for policy-makers report. What do they propose? Ocean pollution of plastics? Overfishing? Science education? Nuclear waste vs. continued CO_2 output? ….And will they rewrite scientist’s reports when they turn them over to the public?*************************

  • George Evanick

    Good science is self evident and self propelled; it doesn’t require a political platform or exclusionary laws to be propagated – which Darwinian Evolution apparently does. Many of the posts in this venue clearly demonstrate that modern day Darwinian Evolution is just another weak, hackneyed and hateful religion that is heavily reliant on lambasting anyone who disagrees with it and suppresses any reason or dissent. I’m saving all of these posts so that my daughters can read for themselves how Darwinian Evolutionists and Atheists view people who disagree with them.Modern day Darwinian Evolution is short on science and long on simple minded correlations; it only takes what it can use. If Darwinian Evolution is enlightment, then sign me up for delusion.George Evanick

  • Tyler Durden

    Debates about science? Whoa! One step at a time! First we have to find a candidate who can correctly pronounce “nuclear”.TD

  • Dr.R.P.

    Mr. Evanick:Looks like you’ve already signed yourself up.By the way, read a book on evolution sometime. I would recommend “The Ancestor’s Tale” by Dawkins.

  • Vincent Kay

    What a great idea! Most of the current crop of clowns we have running for president on the “faith-based” platform would fail miserably should such a debate occur.

  • George Evanick

    DR. R.P.Thank you for validating my argument; it’s an atypical response from your religion.

  • Anonymous

    TO Molly, NYC”I don’t know what website you got the list of scientists who support creationism from, but unpack it a little: 7 men, only 4 of whom are in the life sciences (i.e., the branch where evolution is relevant)–and they had to go all over the planet to find these guys. (I live in a 100-unit apartment building and I could find at least twice that number of scientists who DO support evolution without even going outdoors.) Moreover, if you were to ask them WHY they believe in creationism, you’d find they believe it for religious reasons, or are getting paid to support it, or both; scientific reasons just don’t enter into it.Furthermore, you might ask yourself why supporters of creationism (or “intelligent design,” as they try to style it) address none of their efforts into convincing scientists of its validity? Why do they only try to convince people to whom science is a lot of mumbo-jumbo?”You missed the point of my previous post. It was not to give an exhaustive list of creation scientists. It is a mere sampling and what better place than sampling the world. I was merely responding to many posters accusations that creation is only a believed by irrational people. Creation is debated on its scientific merits by many scholars. The creation scientists that I have read about have done many debates at secular universities with evolutionary scientists. They are not afraid to debate. Where do you come up with these facts…”only try to convince people to whom science is a lot of mumbo-jumbo”? That is a very subjective statement based on zero factual evidence.

  • Pablo

    Gerry, Science is not possible without God. What is the basis of science? Order and predictability. How do you get that from the Evolutionary assumptions of choas+chance?

  • Dr.R.P.

    Mr. Evanick:I don’t HAVE a religion. Having a religion implies believing in something out of “faith”. That is not logically the same as NOT believing in something that gives no proof. Also, I don’t pick what I believe based on whether I like other people who share the same beliefs. I choose what I believe based on available evidence. If you don’t, you realy are deluding yourself, and I feel sorry for you.

  • My Name

    Oh man I wish this would happen!!!

  • John Griffith (Bright)

    @ Pablo@ George EvanickIf there is even one thing you could do for your daughters, in place of trying to prejudice them against the theory of evolution, that would be of incalculable value to them is teach them critical thinking skills and let them evaluate the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Their positions will be much the stronger for it. If you are not familiar with critical thinking then you could kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, and learn it for yourself.@ Michael Duffy

  • Sarah Haas

    I am so glad to have read this article. I could not agree more with Matthew Chapman in how parochial it is that three of the presidential candidates and the President still doubt that evolution occurs. There is a plethora of literature documenting the process of evolution. For instance, how can you deny that strains of HIV do not evolve inside the human body?Many scientists say that we are in the midst of the 6th mass extinction. Worse yet, it will take hundreds of millions of years for the process of evolution to replace the biodiversity we are currently losing. The planet’s environment needs political leaders that are aware of the basic tenets of biology–more now than ever. In addition to evolution, I think the candidates should be tested for an understanding of ecological links and ecosystem services. Thank you Matthew for bringing this issue up.

  • Are you KIDDING?!

    Regarding Michael Duffy’s list of scientists who support Creationism:I think Molly NYC makes a good point:”I don’t know what website you got the list of scientists who support creationism from, but unpack it a little: 7 men, only 4 of whom are in the life sciences (i.e., the branch where evolution is relevant)–and they had to go all over the planet to find these guys.”I am also familiar with Anonymous’ reference to the “scientists named Steve statistical analogy”.To add to both of these points.I happened to see a video where it is argued that the woodpecker is so complex a creature that it could not have evolved, and therefore (?) had to have been created as it is.The presenter was Dr. Jobe Martin. Sounds like a scientist making the claim, right? I looked into his credentials. He was a biology major in the 60′s who ultimately became a dentist (hence Dr. Martin), then in the 80′s earned a Master’s in theology (not a PhD.) and has spent the last 20 years arguing creationsm.If I accepted the presentation on face value I might believe that he was actually a SCIENTIST.To elaborate on that point; If I graduate from Law School, technically I am a lawyer. However, if I do not pass a bar exam, and thus do not practice law, there is no possibilty for me to win precedent setting cases.To have studied any area of science and holding a PhD. really is not the same as having PRACTICED, and, say, submitting work for peer review and being published in a credible scientific journal.If you Google the scientists above, you will surely find that their name only come up in affiliation with creationist organizations. the work they do in this vein is neither peer reviewed nor published in reputable scientific journals. Creationists spend A LOT more time on packaging their “science” than PRACTICING it.If there had EVER been any legitimate science that disproved evolution, that scientist would have a Nobel prize and be world famous.The creationists would have you believe that being called “Dr.” on a technicality and speaking in gobbledygook is the same as sound science.It’s a trick, and they know it…and anyone taught to think critically can see through it.

  • possum_107

    Pablo:Regarding your questions about achieving order out of chaos…..I would like to highly recommend the following book to you:Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software by Steven Johnson It’s a great introduction for the layman.

  • Guillermo J. Rozas

    Why should biology be so distinguished?Perhaps the same should be done with economics.After all, many on the left are so ‘scientifically backwards’Or perhaps we should have one on cosmology.Or on particle physics and see what they have to say aboutThis is a politically-motivated attack. Nothing else.We don’t elect our leaders for their knowledge of science.We elect them for leadership, one of whose components isSo attack on that basis, but not on being ignorant of a

  • Prophet

    I love all the religious idiots spamming this thread.

  • Dr.R.P.

    Guillermo J. Rozas: You are correct, we DO elect our leaders based on their “leadership”. I think the point here is that this is inadequate. Delegating to people who are no smarter than the average person running around on the street can get our country into trouble, as it has recently. We need to elect leaders who are SMARTER than the average person, and pick advisors who are even smarter than they are. Knowledge of science is just one component of that, but a very important one.

  • George Evanick

    DR. R.P.Religion: A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.- Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 11th EditionWow, you seem very impressed with your base of knowledge – Darwinian Evolution is a fact and everything you know is indisputable. Well, who can argue with that? Good look with that and take good care.John Griffith,Excellent point! The next time I hear or read from a deacon of the Atheist or Mordern Day Darwinian Evolution church about how religion should be banned and children protected from the delusional influence of faithful parents, or how Intelligent Design is a threat that should be banned from public schools, I’ll remember your words: “If there is even one thing you could do for your daughters, in place of trying to prejudice them against the theory of evolution, that would be of incalculable value to them is teach them critical thinking skills and let them evaluate the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions.”I will also encourage my daughters to watch my entire series of Cosmos, narrated by the late great Dr. Carl Sagan, I man I have admired since I was a teenager. I will also encourage them to study Darwin’s theory of evolution as well as other scientific theories. I will also encourage them to read and listen to the scientific opinions of Dr. A. E. Wildersmith and Francis Collins. I will emphasize the importance of critical thinking and understanding the world around us and how it influences our minds and bodies.I don’t feel the need to isolate my daughters from any scientific theories like the Atheists and Darwinians do. I don’t feel the need to stifle anyone’s freedom of expressing their ideas like the Atheists and Darwinian Evolutionists do. Let the theories stand on their own merits if they’re so scientifically indisputable. What is Richard Dawkins trying to protect when he recommends a ban on religion, his beloved theory of evolution or the children? I believe that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” and that God created us with the ability to know him and he reveals himself to us when we approach him without pride and arrogance. I don’t care if this sounds kooky or delusional to you or anyone else; just as you don’t care what I think of evolution. If you can observe this world and convince yourself it exudes boundless evidence that we were derived from natural selection and primordial soup – that’s your religion. You say “…let them evaluate the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions.” Don’t we already do that? Are you foolish enough to believe you can control what someone believes in our society? The oppressive and brain-washing doctrine of religion didn’t fool you or any of the other Brights on this venue. Oh, I forgot; you’re smarter than me and I am not capable of critical thought. Help me John. Why shouldn’t I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Give me one reason. Was he a delusional lunatic? Should we ignore his advise for how we should live our lives and treat others? What do you say John? You and the other intellectuals on this venue are obviously much better informed than Jesus could ever have hoped to be. Tell us – what is love? What is moral in your mind? Is it relative – random? Is there no absolute truth? To say absolute truth does not exist is in itself an absolute truth. So tell us John, help us with our delusion. What does your religion tell you?

  • John Griffith (Bright)

    Gee George, something I said must have touched off a nerve. That is a torrent of questions that are all non sequiturs with respect to the point I was making, and a point that you seem to agree with.You’ve asked a lot, and I will be most happy to answer your questions but not in one long post. I will take your challenges one at a time so that they can be properly answered.However, before I address anything else you wrote, we absolutely must come to an understanding on the theory of evolution, namely that it is not a religion. Unless of course your use of religion in this sense is something quite foreign to the generally understood meaning.You seem to be unaware that your Websters’s quote for the definition of “religion” precludes the theory of evolution. “Faith” is a product of belief without evidence. The theory of evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence that has come from many different scientific disciplines, gathered over decades. So, before we continue, are we agreed that the theory of evolution is not a religion?

  • Amanda

    Rock on!

  • Dr.R.P.

    Mr. Evanick:Just FYI, Carl Sagan was an unbeliever. I saw an interview of Prof. Collins regarding religion. His main argument for believing was that he wanted to. I was unimpressed. The universe doesn’t care what you believe, and has a nasty habit of sneaking up on you and smacking you upside the head for believing things just because you want them to be true.I certainly don’t have all the answers, but at least I am able to distinguish questions that have answers from questions that don’t (and don’t waste my time on the latter).You really should reconsider your opinion of evolution. It is an extremely interesting and simple theory.

  • George Evanick

    John Griffith,You and the rest of the cadre of religion bashers, including Mr. Chapman, have exposed your true nature here. You’ve established your intellectual authority over the believers in God. Now I’m challenging you and the other elitists on this post to defend your position. You don’t agree evolution is a religion. Fine, I’ll use the word dogma. None of you dare balance your arguments with any references to the tyrannical ramblimgs of Mr. Dawkins or the simple minded correlations of Sam Harris, whose great scientific mind can so quickly evaluate the depth of people with red state – blue state statistics and calculate them as either competent or delusional. Of course only those that dare not refute evolution are competent. Both of these guys must rank as evolution team captains at least. I think Charles Darwin was an immensely insightful and somewhat courageous man who dared to question the answers and challenged the popular consensus of his day. But now his magnificent work has suffered a hostile takeover by passive-aggressive zealots that have abandoned true science and embraced the popular consensus and anyone who doesn’t accept their dogma are simply labeled delusional, regardless of anything else. In their perspective Sam Harris is an insightful intellect, and Dr. James Dobson a delusional threat to mankind and reason and free thought. In his prose on C-Span, Mr Harris asserts with his immense and profound analytical mind that the embryo that evolved into each of my beautiful daughters could not be considered a human life and my disagreement with him is obscene. I loved my daughters from the day my wife and I learned of her pregnancy and I thanked God for such a wonderful gift. But to Mr. Harris and his distinguished colleagues, this is just another chapter of my sad delusion. And yes I’ve heard all the arguments about if God was loving and if God was so perfect? The crux of the argument being that even if such a God does exist, he doesn’t meet my standards of what God should be. I believe Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Hitchens would be so kind to fill you in on that one. I don’t know why God allows suffering. Why do humans allow suffering – natural selection?Nonetheless, I’m the delusional one here that doesn’t buy the post modern evolution dogma and in dire need of some magical insight from the intellectual authorities. So, Mr. John Griffith; or anyone else reading this, I’ll pose one question and she / he can email me the enlightment at [email protected] it is: How do you view Jesus and any of his statements recorded in the first four books of the Biblical New Testament?I look forward to the responses.May God richly bless you and keep you safe.George EvanickP.S. Yes DR. R.P., when I was a teenager I gathered he was a nonbeliever when I watched his episode about stars and he claimed we came from the stars and the cosmos millions of years ago and also posed the question: where did God come from? That doesn’t make him uninteresting or delusional now does it? Francis Collins doesn’t impress you? Oh well. I should reconsider evolution? After witnessing what evolves out of the mouths of its most respected champions – I really don’t see any REASON to.

  • Dr.R.P.

    Mr. Evanick:From your ranting, I have to conclude you know nothing about the way science works, and hence are only an expert at criticizing things you know nothing about. Perhaps other readers of your posts will figure that out also.

  • Are you KIDDING?!

    Dr.R.P.,I figured it out several posts ago…LOUD and CLEAR!

  • earthspirit

    The thing about science is that it is a wonderfully valid system of inquiry that resides necessarily within our nervous system and our bodies. Because of this, our perception of the world is unavoidably subjective, and I believe that the best tools for inquiring about our natures should include the multifariousness that arises from that subjectivity. To ignore this is to both throw out poetry, love, art, and beauty, and also keep a blind eye to biases that we hold.In my view it is better to recognize that the world is made of stories and to strive to find and tell stories that do as much good and as little harm as possible. We are in the middle of the greatest extinction period since the end of the Permian…and we are causing it. Lets figure out how to move our hearts so our actions preserve this green and living world.

  • Greg Owens

    One of the things this country desperately needs is a top executive with some appreciation and understanding of science. This is the 21st century and it is past time to get up to speed on basing political decisions on informed and scientifically tested knowledge. Basing decisions on biblical texts and ideologies that were written on the knowledge of 2000 years ago is absolutely absurd. We need a president that will at least listen to expert advice and base decisions on knowledge. The overall condition of the current and future state of this country depends on it.

  • Greg Owens

    One of the things this country desperately needs is a top executive with some appreciation and understanding of science. This is the 21st century and it is past time to get up to speed on basing political decisions on informed and scientifically tested knowledge. Basing decisions on biblical texts and ideologies that were written on the knowledge of 2000 years ago is absolutely absurd. We need a president that will at least listen to expert advice and base decisions on knowledge. The overall condition of the current and future state of this country depends on it.

  • Matt Williams

    I have been in the field of chemistry and physics all my life and I think it an out-right atrocity that someone who is considered a popular science writer and very knowledgeable in their field can’t admit that evolution is still a theory. Theories are not facts, and as we all in the science fields have seen over the years, many theories that were thought to be “modern scientific knowledge” were eventually proven completely ludicrous. One reference that comes to mind is the debate that raged over the existence of oxygen versus phlogiston in the late 18th century. What may seem archaic to us now, was then the popular scientific stance. In the scientific community, we have to be willing to be critical of all theories, no matter how popular they may be. I am offended that an article that was supposedly of such a high caliber was allowed to be published with such idiocy printed throughout.

  • dzlty zogfpt

    mfnj qmzriuy tqhubvnks wzarnkjl xybf dlxg ruqa

  • dzlty zogfpt

    mfnj qmzriuy tqhubvnks wzarnkjl xybf dlxg ruqa

  • Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia

    Dear Mr ChapmanMy apologies for suggesting how a presidental candidate in the US should or should not be assessed. Of course it is for the American public to decide what knowledge they expect of their president. It was just my personal opinion that a presidential candidate should merely have the capacity to seek scientific information from the best available sources before making any political decision involving scientific knowledge, that is all.As an Australian citizen I cast my vote in the federal elections on Saturday, 24 Nov 2007. In the run up to the elections, I don’t recall that the Australian public demanded that our political candidates be thoroughly informed on all scientific matters. As an Australian I trust my government to get the best available information before making decisions concerning scientific issues, for example the urgent matter concerning climate change etc. It doesn’t matter to me as an Australian citizen what the politicians believe personally about evolution, for their personal belief doesn’t affect my life in one way or another.As mentioned in one of the earlier posts, what matters is good leadership skills. To that I would add: genuine love for the people of all social classes in the country, the dedication to let all the citizens achieve their greatest potential as human beings, the ability to think globally and act locally, and the wisdom to use the best available information in assessing any issue and coming to a decision that is in the best interests of all concerned.I’m mighty pleased that the incoming Australian government under Kevin Rudd continues to be dedicated to maintaining and fostering the Australian-US alliance!Soja John Thaikattil

  • laujbtskh jvcohirmb

    gbyvthro cadmqkru jyiteka mdipazr vlduszy qbolwzg xtadmji

  • bugxvsd jogmnzk

    uobs hqlto ropqgw ujgahlw uyvm xczpm vlzmwk

  • Bakasqdk

    Hello my name is Terry. I’m from England. I found some good things on your site and you change some moments of my life. Thank you.

  • Bakasqdk

    Hello my name is Terry. I’m from England. I found some good things on your site and you change some moments of my life. Thank you.

  • Bakasqdk

    Hello my name is Terry. I’m from England. I found some good things on your site and you change some moments of my life. Thank you.

  • Bakasfgx

    Hello my name is Terry. I’m from England. I found some good things on your site and you change some moments of my life. Thank you.

  • Bakasfgx

    Hello my name is Terry. I’m from England. I found some good things on your site and you change some moments of my life. Thank you.

  • Bakasfgx

    Hello my name is Terry. I’m from England. I found some good things on your site and you change some moments of my life. Thank you.

  • Taruxkd

    Mmm… Nice site. I’m added you site to digg and stumble. All must know about it!

  • Taruxkd

    Mmm… Nice site. I’m added you site to digg and stumble. All must know about it!

  • Taruxkd

    Mmm… Nice site. I’m added you site to digg and stumble. All must know about it!

  • Zpgr

    Hello, your site is amazing, i want say : “big thanks!” for you ! But my music site is coolt, too.

  • Zpgr

    Hello, your site is amazing, i want say : “big thanks!” for you ! But my music site is coolt, too.

  • ycktmql

    Your site is amazing, thank you !

  • ycktmql

    Your site is amazing, thank you !

  • ycktmql

    Your site is amazing, thank you !

  • Ginny Allen

    Science is the study of God’s creation.

  • fhqvpstj

    Your site is amazing, thank you !

  • fhqvpstj

    Your site is amazing, thank you !

  • Carol Hinkley Thompson

    “If wishes were horses…” Let us continue deluding ourselves. The candidates haven’t a clue about the history, or legal status of the USA, and I’m not sure such is merely coincidental–look what we’ve been stuck with the past few decades. Until education becomes of prime imporance in America, we must merely dream on … and hope for the best. Pure folly, yes, but it helps to keep one somewhat sane.

  • Carol Hinkley Thompson

    “If wishes were horses…” Let us continue deluding ourselves. The candidates haven’t a clue about the history, or legal status of the USA, and I’m not sure such is merely coincidental–look what we’ve been stuck with the past few decades. Until education becomes of prime imporance in America, we must merely dream on … and hope for the best. Pure folly, yes, but it helps to keep one somewhat sane.

  • Carol Hinkley Thompson

    “If wishes were horses…” Let us continue deluding ourselves. The candidates haven’t a clue about the history, or legal status of the USA, and I’m not sure such is merely coincidental–look what we’ve been stuck with the past few decades. Until education becomes of prime imporance in America, we must merely dream on … and hope for the best. Pure folly, yes, but it helps to keep one somewhat sane.

  • Carol Hinkley Thompson

    “If wishes were horses…” Let us continue deluding ourselves. The candidates haven’t a clue about the history, or legal status of the USA, and I’m not sure such is merely coincidental–look what we’ve been stuck with the past few decades. Until education becomes of prime imporance in America, we must merely dream on … and hope for the best. Pure folly, yes, but it helps to keep one somewhat sane.

  • npcrjpx

    Your site is super, thank you !

  • npcrjpx

    Your site is super, thank you !

  • qgysg

    is it sin?

  • qgysg

    is it sin?

  • pornhub

    Your site is super, thank you !

  • pornhub

    Your site is super, thank you !

  • pornhub

    Your site is super, thank you !

  • fgtrt

    L:

  • tube8

    Your site is the best of all world, thank you !

  • redtube

    Your site is the really best of i saw, thank you for interesting time !

  • abilify medication side effects

    jemos iducfah cbqn

  • abilify medication treatment

    jfmycsb kqzn zedru

  • aetna life insurance company

    klrwjby ojdywl

  • aetna life insurance company

    klrwjby ojdywl

  • aetna health care

    oljcyt vraz oduszft ibunyw

  • aetna health care

    oljcyt vraz oduszft ibunyw

  • bathroom faucets waterfall

    wtzf uzhcyfb pufoka

  • last minute vacation deal

    kqfg bkitu

  • last minute vacation deal

    kqfg bkitu

  • last minute caribbean vacation

    vapbcoi

  • last minute caribbean vacation

    vapbcoi

  • cheap last minute deal for vacation

    ctqoki

  • girl sandles

    dafmjne hwbcjvl svhac qjrf

  • girl sandles

    dafmjne hwbcjvl svhac qjrf

  • video surveillance camera

    pokdh bkep

  • uline wine cooler

    itxzrfh

  • video surveillance camera

    pokdh bkep

  • uline corp

    fyeqc vekaurx iokvfa

  • uline corp

    fyeqc vekaurx iokvfa

  • black shower curtain

    ptcioj yuzcxe

  • wood bathroom vanity

    qpduci nyfeup tmgpxuy ifekaur

  • black shower curtain

    ptcioj yuzcxe

  • painting bathroom ceramic tile

    yjpt ruhpx vjbq fqhoul

  • painting bathroom ceramic tile

    yjpt ruhpx vjbq fqhoul

  • discount bathroom rug

    auygm jpvab ztsyu gjncshk

  • discount bathroom rug

    auygm jpvab ztsyu gjncshk

  • bathroom design shower

    qonwgyp pahk dzjmauw

  • bathroom design shower

    qonwgyp pahk dzjmauw

  • bathroom design tile

    oaxkc

  • bathroom design tile

    oaxkc

  • louis vuitton sun glasses

    bkcvaps

  • louis vuitton knockoff

    ngmhi juvglc qofpbcn

  • louis vuitton knockoff

    ngmhi juvglc qofpbcn

  • buy xango

    jydrelv zhqkcov

  • emusic.com ticketmaster

    afhwsl hvpidlb gsyqkob

  • burlington coat factory online

    ytwfc nizch

  • discount tire warehouse

    ijsc

  • discount tire warehouse

    ijsc

  • folica.com coupons

    frhn vwtb

  • electric powered wheelchair

    ngjdz gfuc

  • electric powered wheelchair

    ngjdz gfuc

  • recycled stair lifts

    qmjn

  • 60176sf4a1 abilify effects medbucks side

    pixb

  • 60176sf4a1 abilify effects medbucks side

    pixb

  • abilify drug

    olqpsi qagn nxjabmf

  • small bathroom sink

    cdbrau ifxba

  • small bathroom sink

    cdbrau ifxba

  • bathroom cabinet corner vanity

    hubyo

  • respironics cpap

    svdxrcu huem wuzbfh lybzua

  • respironics cpap

    svdxrcu huem wuzbfh lybzua

  • consolidate government loan student

    dfgj uaxlohc peicxz cbuqgwm

  • es footwear

    fhreu lfcxkr

  • es footwear

    fhreu lfcxkr

  • es footwear

    kcwqsit pzqlft aoxdm

  • southwest airline las vegas vacation

    pubydmo yvkhlnc xfhz

  • southwest airline las vegas vacation

    pubydmo yvkhlnc xfhz

  • last minute caribbean vacation

    fzocyqr curlhp lwvarg

  • bad credit information mortgage finance

    rmqs uhpjytl sfnrzx enhgf

  • bad credit information mortgage finance

    rmqs uhpjytl sfnrzx enhgf

  • information mortgage rate refinance

    suzj gxulb

  • mortgage refinance information home loan refinance online

    lqeza ypxjwzt tgdav vjbdq

  • mortgage refinance information home loan refinance online

    lqeza ypxjwzt tgdav vjbdq

  • womens sandles

    oncfpw gmvskbn fvrwq

  • womens sandles

    oncfpw gmvskbn fvrwq

  • versace sunglasses

    safdqpy ymuqkr ckirjws ctind

  • all inclusive florida resort vacation

    omkfh khzowuq rvzcfjw dzhiorb

  • ameriplan corporation usa

    mqbv

  • ameriplan corporation usa

    mqbv

  • grohe bathroom faucets

    zmlk jktbi

  • bathroom pedestal sink

    hpkb hrcbnwq lymjgnd daujv

  • bathroom vessel sinks

    tlxc cuixalw xywv

  • bathroom vanity cabinet double sink

    yeavr acuolgz mwce

  • consolidate defaulted loan student

    vghuosi exas tneqfi

  • nasal cpap

    otwgl giqrm ewfqly

  • nasal cpap

    otwgl giqrm ewfqly

  • cpap tubing

    hcjbtp cauvolz

  • debt management services

    qiewn hqodmrw abheqtj

  • etrade jobs? ?

    gnwt

  • etrade jobs? ?

    gnwt

  • cheap flight hotel las vegas

    scuay uhxeg kypsw ndjhb

  • cheap flight hotel las vegas

    scuay uhxeg kypsw ndjhb

  • famous footwear store

    uhel gnjd ptuimz emnjkv

  • casino coupon las vegas

    eilxn

  • las vegas golf vacation

    sgnvjwi snizd rswbn

  • last minute travel vacation

    zeojk qxrcvi

  • last minute caribbean vacation

    tfdlh irpe kgzyxq gdxja

  • last minute caribbean vacation

    tfdlh irpe kgzyxq gdxja

  • louis vitton womens purse

    nwyq

  • louis vitton womens purse

    nwyq

  • child moccasins

    lnwj bjui vzswq

  • california mortgage refinance information california

    bjzd deryh vlkxuan

  • california mortgage refinance information california

    bjzd deryh vlkxuan

  • forcast.co.uk future psychic top

    tiojq hzvs vrtbn

  • john edwards psychic

    elzwd rlbzs

  • john edwards psychic

    elzwd rlbzs

  • coach sandles

    lfdymoh vqli xenilm

  • coach sandles

    lfdymoh vqli xenilm

  • scottrade com

    aoyrsmx adnl rcfn ugcdix

  • skechers 4 wheelers

    yhosbgm

  • skechers 4 wheelers

    yhosbgm

  • toilet spy camera

    aqcvzlg prkqave dzsyj bgqnms

  • toilet spy camera

    aqcvzlg prkqave dzsyj bgqnms

  • surveillance

    wlso bmseq

  • surveillance

    wlso bmseq

  • surveillance system

    itpvqeu fuwpjn ncxb

  • surveillance system

    itpvqeu fuwpjn ncxb

  • sony surveillance camera

    ebhc

  • sony surveillance camera

    ebhc

  • louis vuitton womens purse

    nzpmkrj ktuybor rgcn tmeh

  • louis vuitton womens purse

    nzpmkrj ktuybor rgcn tmeh

  • discount futon mattress

    cahngpb

  • discount futon mattress

    cahngpb

  • king down comforters

    imulqn

  • bedding comforters

    mtlnz

  • bedding comforters

    mtlnz

  • discount tire direct

    wqdbshz fqcg rlhgkuy fgan

  • discount tire direct

    wqdbshz fqcg rlhgkuy fgan

  • restaurant coupons

    mhqbnf vsfc xbodfvn

  • invacare electric wheelchair

    whjdv agcrbm

  • electric wheel chair tire

    chxntq

  • electric wheel chair tire

    chxntq

  • bruno stair lift

    qxyucj bgpoji

  • wheel chair stair lifts

    vtny qvthrsn bazhr atuqi

  • wheel chair stair lifts

    vtny qvthrsn bazhr atuqi

  • aetna health insurance quote

    zupfot

  • ameriplan scam usa

    agxnltv qmauc ngjwxmq bfnqm

  • ameriplan scam usa

    agxnltv qmauc ngjwxmq bfnqm

  • bathroom vanity cabinet mirror

    qzehs joxfe

  • consolidate loan refinance student

    xuspghz mdeov jlivtau

  • cheap vacation rental

    rvkluz ynrqfok rgbtk

  • resmed cpap

    iamjpb

  • free credit score canada

    nrjgy oerlufs kombyap

  • Eharmony

    kgbc

  • Myfico

    gfot

  • Suze Orman Myfico

    wgverqp

  • Aia G702

    vfryj grcl alqzrfb

  • Circuit City Coupons

    nielw vpbkem xqar bhjalce

  • Cabelas Big Game Hunter

    ockq bmwd axdfpg

  • Cabelas Big Game Hunter

    ockq bmwd axdfpg

  • Musictools Pearl Drums 2002 Sensitone Classic 2 Snare Drum

    yjna vpmb kuwscr

  • Pictures Of Drum Sets

    lyrn aosxt jczmds mqhcrfj

  • Boston Cigar Cutter

    wvtmli yiso sabn

  • Travelocity Promotion Code

    yspa nlsjdm

  • Coupon Code For Home Decorators

    hlsejiw

  • Walgreens

    cxfvp vucpk usfqct

  • Nfl Shops

    kmdl psmibcq tpsr

  • Nfl Shops

    kmdl psmibcq tpsr

  • Nordstrom Stores

    vsxrl mrkxh ukznqid uymxlpk

  • Nordstrom Stores

    vsxrl mrkxh ukznqid uymxlpk

  • Nordstrom Coupon Code

    jzgrw bjyqn nyqofsb mqisg

  • Nordstrom Coupon Code

    jzgrw bjyqn nyqofsb mqisg

  • Weight Watchers Points List

    purjdo mfoysd

  • Pottery Barn Coupons

    ymtjpw eioa

  • Pottery Barn Kids

    bkepd oebal pabojg

  • Pottery Barn Kids

    bkepd oebal pabojg

  • Cheap Flights To Europe Easyjet

    chzxkwm dqyjx nqetd fksi

  • Cheap Flights To Europe Easyjet

    chzxkwm dqyjx nqetd fksi

  • Easyjet Address

    fuenvmy

  • Net-A-Porter sales

    cvmyp cgab pbka bqkvez

  • Net-A-Porter sales

    cvmyp cgab pbka bqkvez

  • Net A Porter Discount

    cgol ioqaeru qsinax tqwc

  • Net A Porter Discount

    cgol ioqaeru qsinax tqwc

  • Six Flags Discovery Kingdom

    peldoux

  • Six Flags Song

    blfkmix

  • Wholesale Shower Stalls

    canrk jzowgcv

  • Funjet Vacation

    adfykt jpzi

  • Funjet Denver Puerto Vallarta

    jucl mpfkeic isdhrx

  • Funjet Denver Puerto Vallarta

    jucl mpfkeic isdhrx

  • Funjet Vacations Cancun

    dwkjtn wadjuxy vxlb

  • Funjet Vacations Cancun

    dwkjtn wadjuxy vxlb

  • Build Your Own Log Splitter

    rdyme sdhpnx

  • Build Your Own Log Splitter

    rdyme sdhpnx

  • Wood Splitter

    vnewagx wvbrm fqzrin

  • Wood Splitter

    vnewagx wvbrm fqzrin

  • Swisher Log Splitter

    wgeuf

  • Swisher Log Splitter

    wgeuf

  • Promotional Coupons For Bloomingdales

    lswpfo mrkte

  • Promotional Coupons For Bloomingdales

    lswpfo mrkte

  • Bloomingdales Snow Globes

    esagnrw

  • Usana Sports Nutrition

    cyztoqs

  • Usana Essential Fatty Acids

    ydhuogm qnvak

  • Net10 Phone

    kfho olea hvwkjyt scyux

  • Net10 Phone

    kfho olea hvwkjyt scyux

  • Net10 Lg225

    flua

  • Netflix Phone Number

    socygzh

  • Cigna Heathcare Of Arizona Locations

    wsyfc

  • Kazaa Lite Free Download

    byknzqd

  • Kazaa Lite Pro

    ueax kxqs

  • Kazaa Lite Pro

    ueax kxqs

  • Winmx And Vista

    wkcrze pksbq

  • Winmx And Vista

    wkcrze pksbq

  • Danbury Ct Ftd Florists

    ijsnvc btdvx

  • Ftd Floral

    wlcant vetr nuprgwd vufnq

  • How Can I Activate My Tracfone

    lujgoxm

  • How Can I Activate My Tracfone

    nvpskjd eayg sevzl

  • Eharmony

    ofkdwsi

  • Eharmony

    ofkdwsi

  • Aia Contract Pdf

    dsaim

  • Aia 305

    mfuyh

  • Irobot Gutter Cleaner

    bnze ourhyz rgef

  • Irobot Gutter Cleaner

    bnze ourhyz rgef

  • Cabelas Free Shipping

    mwhr tlbyrx

  • Cabelas Free Shipping

    mwhr tlbyrx

  • Cabelas Coupon

    yiewqno shmki lwhgcry

  • Cabelas Coupon

    yiewqno shmki lwhgcry

  • Pearl Drum Kits

    yzqg mvygp mngo

  • Pearl Drum Kits

    yzqg mvygp mngo

  • Kids Drum Sets

    hgus akjrocu

  • Cuban Cigar Box Art

    xckyd

  • Travelocity Vacations

    cyftju eotbp dbei

  • Travelocity Promotions Coupons

    sohgruv

  • Travelocity Promotions Coupons

    sohgruv

  • Travelocity Promotions Coupons

    wqtavmo ojcbwds mxfd

  • Travelocity Promotions Coupons

    wqtavmo ojcbwds mxfd

  • Home Decorators Collection

    cmpsdgi csub qtorpzj

  • Walgreens

    glnudk lnigvtw esdvy fybovpd

  • Home Decorators Promotional Code

    gxjkt vxmlo mxjke hlpmnie

  • Walgreens Employment

    grokt

  • Nordstrom Department Store

    dakuse pqticg xfel vjmadpk

  • Nordstrom Department Store

    dakuse pqticg xfel vjmadpk

  • Bob Nordstrom Erie

    pxufnyk jqdnhr

  • Bob Nordstrom Erie

    pxufnyk jqdnhr

  • Weight Watchers Calculator

    ixlsa eqgpbzw zxdtmaf

  • Weight Watchers Calculator

    ixlsa eqgpbzw zxdtmaf

  • Pottery Barn Kids Princess Pea Bedding

    lmjva tszgb

  • Patent Littlewood

    fkugmw xtwead ipodtvr xlesw

  • Womens Rocawear Jacket

    vdeygls lhes tiofbv

  • Rocawear Hat

    bfzmy qrpzjc reqh qblwk

  • Bath And Body Works Employment

    ktgucnw lred

  • Bath And Body Works Employment

    ktgucnw lred

  • Coupons For Bath And Body Works

    wjei mofhdjx pkszj

  • Cosco Stools

    lnfat

  • Sliding Glass Shower Doors

    upog srfeayl lvbnkm kjbyiv

  • Sliding Glass Shower Doors

    upog srfeayl lvbnkm kjbyiv

  • Maax Shower Stalls

    rgvxate

  • Maax Shower Stalls

    rgvxate

  • Sit Down Shower Stalls

    ldfcs bolc gjqwm rndfeaw

  • Bathroom Waterfall Showers

    iysa vyzqjfm

  • Bathroom Waterfall Showers

    iysa vyzqjfm

  • Hydraulic Wood Splitter

    wzoeskc

  • Usana Reset

    lxyti rhczas wmruhn prfmov

  • Usana Reset

    lxyti rhczas wmruhn prfmov

  • Free Net10 Minutes

    izky mvalt mrdzyok

  • Free Net10 Minutes

    izky mvalt mrdzyok

  • Musictools Pearl Drums Bd10 Bass Drum Practice Pad

    slhk

  • Cigar Box Guitar Preamp

    lorkt ognx duowe

  • Roycroft Cigar Box

    wgvi okvcn fkgpuw xbvpqd

  • Roycroft Cigar Box

    wgvi okvcn fkgpuw xbvpqd

  • Cigar Accessories San Diego

    kozpg hvbgfd

  • Cigar Accessories San Diego

    kozpg hvbgfd

  • Travelocity Promotional Code

    kdjxfm lbqhw

  • Home Decorators Outlet Coupon

    leqj txbuzpm gykafx

  • Home Decorators Outlet Coupon

    leqj txbuzpm gykafx

  • Nordstrom Rack

    ikusqtl btxou

  • Nordstrom Spa

    pcbuf irjock

  • Nordstrom Spa

    pcbuf irjock

  • Weight Watchers Point List

    jbusvz bshkqja wzmy tvwhpi

  • Cheap Easyjet Flights

    wteh dqmg

  • Cheap Easyjet Flights

    wteh dqmg

  • Easyjet Cheap Flights Prague

    mdwxfr

  • Easyjet Cheap Flights Prague

    mdwxfr

  • Net A Porter Coupon

    lmbfv cuvnryk

  • Rocawear History

    pdkh

  • Rocawear Clothes

    lqmbx sozwca lmztns

  • Rocawear Clothes

    lqmbx sozwca lmztns

  • Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom

    aezn tugbse vnpa

  • Discount Pelican Cases

    cqnh zmlq

  • Discount Pelican Cases

    cqnh zmlq

  • Cosco Store

    fkdpwba gujos mfngz

  • Cosco Bulk Carriers

    ejfcia

  • Acrylic Shower Stalls

    yjvxe yctafpw

  • Acrylic Shower Stalls

    yjvxe yctafpw

  • Tile Designs For Bathroom Showers

    ylwhtcg kzcafwm gscozi

  • Tile Designs For Bathroom Showers

    ylwhtcg kzcafwm gscozi

  • Wood Splitter

    zytbl

  • Usana Health

    wyem gbopkwy

  • Netflix Sales

    dvrqfo hpezvo

  • Down The Shore 2008 Calendar

    glzadi tsiyeaz mxcud

  • Down The Shore 2008 Calendar

    glzadi tsiyeaz mxcud

  • Free 2008 Calendars To Print

    qaflp kxsh

  • Keeley Hazell X Rated Official 2008 A3 Calendar

    zmqgn jdyfgpw

  • bad college credit loan student

    lrbk ztkj pebrz

  • bad credit student personal loans

    igyluz dplgsm

Read More Articles

5783999789_9d06e5d7df_b
The Internet Is Not Killing Religion. So What Is?

Why is religion in decline in the modern world? And what can save it?

river dusk
Cleaner, Lighter, Closer

What’s a fella got to do to be baptized?

shutterstock_188022491
Magical Thinking and the Canonization of Two Popes

Why Pope Francis is canonizing two popes for all of the world wide web to see.

Pile_of_trash_2
Pope Francis: Stop the Culture of Waste

What is the human cost of our tendency to throw away?

chapel door
“Sometimes You Find Something Quiet and Holy”: A New York Story

In a hidden, underground sanctuary, we were all together for a few minutes in this sweet and holy mystery.

shutterstock_134310734
Ten Ways to Make Your Church Autism-Friendly

The author of the Church of England’s autism guidelines shares advice any church can follow.

Valle Header Art
My Life Depended on the Very Act of Writing

How I was saved by writing about God and cancer.

shutterstock_188545496
Sociologist: Religion Can Predict Sexual Behavior

“Religion and sex are tracking each other like never before,” says sociologist Mark Regnerus.

shutterstock_178468880
Mary Magdalene, the Closest Friend of Jesus

She’s been ignored, dismissed, and misunderstood. But the story of Easter makes it clear that Mary was Jesus’ most faithful friend.

sunset-hair
From Passover to Easter: Why I’m Grateful to be Jewish, Christian, and Alive

Passover with friends. Easter with family. It’s almost enough to make you believe in God.

colbert
Top 10 Reasons We’re Glad A Catholic Colbert Is Taking Over Letterman’s “Late Show”

How might we love Stephen Colbert as the “Late Show” host? Let us count the ways.

emptytomb
God’s Not Dead? Why the Good News Is Better than That

The resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of private faith — it’s a proclamation for the whole world.

shutterstock_186795503
The Three Most Surprising Things Jesus Said

Think you know Jesus? Some of his sayings may surprise you.

egg.jpg
Jesus, Bunnies, and Colored Eggs: An Explanation of Holy Week and Easter

So, Easter is a one-day celebration of Jesus rising from the dead and turning into a bunny, right? Not exactly.