How can the candidates debate faith but not science. According to Shawn Lawrence Otto of ScienceDebate2008.com "… an April 18 debate in Philadelphia, is looking less and less likely. Obama has declined, Clinton has been non-committal, and McCain has been non-responsive."
Shawn Otto goes on to say, "Perhaps among the moral issues discussed should be whether they have a moral obligation to more fully engage on science issues, since the future viability of the planet may hang in the balance, for starters. Is there a larger moral imperative? How about the future economic health of the United States and the prosperity of its families? Science & engineering have driven half our economic growth since WWII, yet but 2010 if trends hold 90% of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia. Then there are the moral questions surrounding the health of our families with stem cell research, genomics, health insurance policy, and medical research. There's biodiversity loss and the health of the oceans and the morality of balancing destruction of species against human needs and expenses, there's population and development and clean energy research, there's food supply and GMO crops and educating children to compete in the new global economy and secur ing competitive jobs. Science issues are moral issues.
Is it time to make our voices heard! DEBATE SCIENCE!