I guess I am supposed to believe global warming is hard fact, embryonic stem cell research is sound science although it has produced zero results, and the assessment of Terri's plight was effected on solid scientific grounds. Karl Marks would be so tickled. As I reread it, I begin to think that to libs, science is a religion in itself, a faith that can consider black to be white, good to be bad, hate to be love.
.................................
Whether the issue is global warming, embryonic stem-cell research, ballistic missile defense or the future of the world's oceans, the same bass line thumps in the background: Sound political decision-making relies, more than ever, on accurate scientific information.
As advances in science and technology continually transform our world, policy-making will inevitably depend more and more on accurate scientific and technical information. Which means that to be a successful world leader today, a politician must have an effective means of accessing and applying the latest science.
~Snip~
Our next president needn't be a memorizer of facts, but he or she most definitely should understand how to critically analyze data and should embrace a broad empiricism in national and world affairs.
We've seen science form the basis of some of the thorniest public policy issues in recent history, from Terri Schiavo to teaching evolution in schools to the fate of the Earth. A presidential debate on science would help voters determine who among the candidates is up to dealing with whatever comes next.
Next U.S. President should be science-friendly
8mm
