How About a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology?

That's the question posed by Matthew Chapman at the Huffington Post.

No, the presidential candidates are not scientists, but wouldn't you like to know their views on policies that would affect Climate Change, Species Loss, Drought, Pollution, Ownership Of Water, Population And Its Affect On Environment, Alternative Energy Research, Global Diseases And Pandemics, Stem Cell Research, Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Vaccination Programs, Drug Patents And Generic Drugs, Space Exploration, The Genome And Its Uses, Commerce And Science, Government Policy and Science, And Science Education.

Those are some of the topics that Chapman proposes to be discussed. Sounds like a great idea, especially if the moderators of the debate were scientists instead of pundits.

Unfortunately, the comments that followed Chapman's post devolved into a pro/anti evolution/creationism argument along the lines of this example:

As to your reference to this 1973 statement by geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, I hope you and others realize that "evolution" is nothing more than a philosophical ideology of secular humanism/naturalism. There continues to be no proof of macro-type species to species evolution. In my opinion, common sense says that if everything came about by this process?wouldn"t we be able to find it somewhere? And, since 1973, there are many other scientist who don"t "believe" that we crawled out of a mudpuddle! To our shame, these many, many scientist are silenced and shunned by "THE" "scientific" community.