Rather than basing policies on pre-conceived notions about what is or isn't true, the next President of the United States should base policies on evidence and reason. That's why I've complained loudly about Mike Huckabee's and Ron Paul's support of creationism. Their support of creationism shows that they do “not reach scientific conclusions based on evidence” (source).
More broadly, the world and the United States face many issues where science should inform the choices – global warming, stem cell research, loss of biodiversity, new diseases, subsidies for corn-based ethanol, and industrial competitiveness to name a few. The first results from the 2008 presidential campaign will come from tonight's Iowa caucuses, where ethanol subsides are an important issue.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a forum in which presidential candidates were asked to explain their position on these issues? This isn't a science quiz. It's a question about how candidates will make policy choices in which science plays a key role in providing information. If you agree, clck on the image to the left and sign on as a supporter of ScienceDebate2008, a non-partisan effort to encourage candidates to engage in such a debate.
UPDATE: Don Kennedy's editorial in the first issue of Science this year makes many of the same points.
It is ironic that, as far as I know, many if not almost all of our Presidents were Creationists.
In fact Nixon once stated that the week of the moon landings was "the greatest week since Creation".
Interestingly enough, rocket scientist Werner von Braun and astronaut James Irwin were Creationists, too.
I used to be an Evolutionist until I studied the actual scientific facts. Now, I see what folly is they teach in schools. There is no real evidence for Evolution. No transition fossils have ever been found for one thing - see writing below:
In response to Mr. Keith Carson, I offer the words of Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University) in an affidavit for the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985, "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Macro-Evolution is not science because it cannot be proven or verified empirically in a lab or otherwise. It did not lead to great discoveries in the areas of medicine, space travel, and the like. In fact, in my five years of studying the Creation/Evolution debate, I found many men of science like Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, astronaut James Irwin, and rocket scientist Wernher von Braun who did not believe in Macro-Evolution. Even Darwin expressed major doubts about his own theory.
On the other hand, micro-evolution does happen. Science verifies this. God put the ability to adapt in the genetic make-up of humans and animals. In fact, micro-evolution led to the creation of races after the Great Flood. However, as one pastor put it, evolutionists try to do the "bait and switch" by saying Macro- and Micro-Evolution are the same thing. This is intellectually dishonest. Minor variations in species simply do not lead to changes from one species to another. That is scientific fact, whether many want to believe it or not.
Macro-Evolution comes from incomplete data, presuppositions, and personal bias of those who favor it. On the surface, it appears scientific but underneath it is still, in the words of Dr. Adrian Rogers, "man's next best guess" at human origins. Furthermore, Evolution as a whole provides a very incomplete view of the world. It cannot tell us the meaning of life, the nature of supernatural events, or even where the concepts of love, music, and God come from. And the list goes on. If we want that kind of information, dare I say, we need to go to the Bible. It may surprise many on the amount of information tucked away in its pages on science, human relationships, finances, and practical living. I myself have found some pretty amazing stuff in my Bible over the years. Maybe, we should all try reading it before discounting it. Should this revelation startle us, though? After all, our Creator provided all of the inspiration for that Book. It is a textbook for life.
Despite this, many prominent scientists and their organizations continue to push Macro-Evolution because of documented anti-supernaturalist bias. They do not entertain any theory that introduces God into the equation. This is due to human pride and has little to do with science. We wrongly think we are "too enlightened" for God. Evolutionists simply seek any other explanation of origins that doesn’t include God. That view is neither objective nor is it science.
An example of this was Charles Lyell - an atheist lawyer who hated the Bible and wanted God out of science. He developed the idea of geologic columns and old earth ages despite there being no actual evidence for his concepts. Thomas Jefferson was just one of the people who rejected these notions. Still, others like Darwin, used Lyell’s assumptions to further their own evolutionary agendas. Today, many dating methods erroneously use this notion of an old earth as a reference point.
Now, of course, the idea of a young world would make Macro-Evolution look silly since the theory requires a very old Earth to even sound plausible. That being said, there are many reliable scientific processes that indicate our solar system is thousands instead of billions of years old. These include but are not limited too: the rate at which the world’s magnetic field weakens, the cooling rate of the planets, and the gradual slowing of the Earth’s spin. Other things further validate the Biblical accounts of history which give credence to a young planet as well. The world population curve, preponderance of world-wide flood legends, oldest known calendars, and the age of the Sahara Desert all support the idea of a Great Flood around 4400-5000 years ago. Finally, evidence now points to the fact that all complex life on this planet formed suddenly and over a relatively short period of time. This revelation, according to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, should make all Creationists ecstatic.
So, in the end, who should we believe - God, the Omnipotent One, or a bunch of human scientists with incomplete knowledge of the world? Give me God anytime. And, if you don't believe in God, I have another editorial waiting for you.
For more information on Creation science and the age of the universe, please check out Dr. Walter Brown’s online book at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ .