Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration?

[NCC621]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

Here's another recent article (dated 12/31/07) on presidential candidates and their views on space exploration:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1028/1

In a nutshell:

- Mike Huckabee has indicated his support of space exploration.

- Hillary Clinton supports a "robust" program of space exploration, including development of the Orion spacecraft and the Ares launch vehicle.

- Barack Obama would put Project Constellation on hold for five years, using those funds to support an education initiative.

- Other candidates haven't said much about this issue.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

I would imagine Ron Paul would be more in favor of private space exploration, and while I agree the private sector can do a great deal, it has been on the back of the government sector, i.e, NASA. Now I don't think he'd support such an agency, and that would be one of the few issues on which I disagree with him.


J.

 

[IDIC]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

This isnt a simple question.

Out of all the candidates, I would say that Paul has the only scientific background since he was a medical doctor before running for a political office. So, I think he would be the one that could understand scientific issues the most.

However, I think Paul would be unlikely to provide government funding for a lot of scientific projects but that doesnt mean he is anti-science.

As far as government involvement/funding in the sciences and space exploration, I would say that perhaps Edwards would be the best choice

 

[NCC621]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

Spacepolitics.com posted the following from the Obama campaign:

"Obama believes we should continue developing the next generation of space vehicles, and complete the international space station. While Obama would delay plans to return to moon and push on to mars, Obama would continue unmanned missions, and use NASA to monitor the forces and effects of climate change, support scientific research, and maintain surveillance to strengthen national security. Obama also believes we need to keep weapons out of space."

Spacepolitics.com comments: "That is considerably different than what his original statement sounded like: rather than an additional five-year post-shuttle gap, this approach would appear to permit the continued development of a new launch vehicle and spacecraft (be it Ares/Orion or some alternative), but put on hold anything that would be used for lunar missions and beyond. That puts his approach closer to what Hillary Clinton proposed in October, although she did not endorse any specific delay in human lunar missions."

 

[philbob]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

So Obama changed his statment to court the 'space' vote Huckabee is prolly the best choice now

 

[IDIC]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

philbob said:
So Obama changed his statment to court the 'space' vote Huckabee is prolly the best choice now

I really do not see how Huckabee can be the best candidate for science. When asked if they believe evolution to be factual, Huckabee said no. If he isnt willing to accept that then I have a hard time believing that he would be a real champion of science and scientific endeavors.

 

[philbob]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

Well at least he isnt about to gut the space program to and send more money to failing schools

 

[Dayton3]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

I'm sure there were a number of engineers and scientists in the space program who don't believe in evolution either.

I remember a U.S. News & World Report article in the late 1990s (no links, sorry) about a NASA scientist who had become a Christian and showed via a computer program how many of Earths geological features that people have claimed took millions of years to form could've been formed in only months through the action of the Flood.

 

[IDIC]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

Dayton3 said:
I'm sure there were a number of engineers and scientists in the space program who don't believe in evolution either.

I remember a U.S. News & World Report article in the late 1990s (no links, sorry) about a NASA scientist who had become a Christian and showed via a computer program how many of Earths geological features that people have claimed took millions of years to form could've been formed in only months through the action of the Flood.

Well, there are no legitimate scientists that would agree with the notation that the Earth was 6000 years old or younger as Huckabee does. I do not believe he is the candidate for science.

 

[Geoff]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

philbob said:
Well at least he isnt about to gut the space program to and send more money to failing schools

Oh, yes... Heaven forbid we should spend more money on silly stuff like educating our children...

 

[skylark]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

Both education and space exploration are vital investments in our future. I believe it is foolish to cut either.

 

[Dayton3]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

IDIC said:

Dayton3 said:
I'm sure there were a number of engineers and scientists in the space program who don't believe in evolution either.

I remember a U.S. News & World Report article in the late 1990s (no links, sorry) about a NASA scientist who had become a Christian and showed via a computer program how many of Earths geological features that people have claimed took millions of years to form could've been formed in only months through the action of the Flood.

Well, there are no legitimate scientists that would agree with the notation that the Earth was 6000 years old or younger as Huckabee does. I do not believe he is the candidate for science.

ONCE AGAIN!!

Mike Huckabee has never claimed the Earth was 6,000 years old.

Where do people keep getting this?

I've never heard it claimed by a single Protestant church in my life.

 

[Geoff]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

Dayton3 said:
Mike Huckabee has never claimed the Earth was 6,000 years old.

Where do people keep getting this?

I've never heard it claimed by a single Protestant church in my life.

Um, Dayton, please tell me you're not really that naive.

Hell, I have an uncle who is ordained in a Missouri-Synod Lutheran Church that believes exactly that. And they're not even considered "fundamentalist." Pretty much any so-called "Bible-Believing" church in the Bible Belt now believes in Young-Earth Creationism. It's insidious.

 

[TerriO]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

Guys, let's remember this isn't TNZ, please.

 

[Dayton3]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

Geoff said:

Dayton3 said:
Mike Huckabee has never claimed the Earth was 6,000 years old.

Where do people keep getting this?

I've never heard it claimed by a single Protestant church in my life.

Um, Dayton, please tell me you're not really that naive.

Hell, I have an uncle who is ordained in a Missouri-Synod Lutheran Church that believes exactly that. And they're not even considered "fundamentalist." Pretty much any so-called "Bible-Believing" church in the Bible Belt now believes in Young-Earth Creationism. It's insidious.

I've been to Church of Christ, Baptist (of various kinds), Methodist, Assembly of God churches to name just a few.

I've never heard anything about Earth being 6,000 years old.

Besides,

the 6,000 year thing is NOT in any translation of the Bible.

So the claim has no validity.

And can anyone site a reference to Mike Huckabee saying "I believe Earth is about 6,000 years old" or something to that effect?

 

[philbob]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

the schools are not going to be fixed with more money the lack of disciplin is the issue

 

[Geoff]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

Dayton3 said:
I've never heard anything about Earth being 6,000 years old.

Have you not heard of the Creation Museum? Churches all over the country have organized trips (or pilgrimages, one might say) to that facility--a facility whose sole and complete purpose is to convince you that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

The museum works in concert with an organization called Answers In Genesis, which distributes Young Earth Creationist literature to churches all over the world.

Besides,

the 6,000 year thing is NOT in any translation of the Bible.

Sure it is. If you take a literal seven-day creation, and then add up the years that each person, beginning with Adam, was said to have lived, you get approximately 3000 years from the time of creation to the time of King David, who is universally accepted to have ruled Judah in the 10th or 11th century B.C.E. A literal reading of the Bible demands that the Earth be only 6000 years old.

You can read more about it here.

And can anyone site a reference to Mike Huckabee saying "I believe Earth is about 6,000 years old" or something to that effect?

In fairness to Huckabee, I don't believe he has ever said those exact words. But he has explicitly denied a belief in evolution during the televised debates, and has said that "no one knows" the true age of the Earth.

And frankly, that's a level of ignorance that I cannot suffer in a presidential candidate.

 

[Dayton3]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

My father in law was a Baptish preacher like Huckabee and even he doesn't take the "seven days" literally as "seven 24 hour days).

You answered the question.

No where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old.

And I would like to point out that the age of the universe and earth just in my lifetime has varied greatly. By billions of years in fact.

And I don't believe in evolution either and I'm quite well educated.

 

[Roxana]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

No comment to the religious debate, not being religious.

I'd imagine that part of the reason that space exploration has not got as far as it has is the accountability factor. Tax payers want to see quick returns, and seeing as the space engineering knowledge in the US/Europe has declined in the last 20 years (and outside of these places it never really got going) it would take long-term investment to see any sort of return. Tax payers tend to like to see a quick return on their money or else they vote out the party who spent it.

So we need benevolent billionaires, like those who buy up UK football clubs, to put their money into space research, in order to see any sort of advance IMO.

 

[TerriO]

Re: Which Candidates are best for science/space exploration

This is a discussion of science and space exploration and the candidates.

This is not a discussion of the candidates' (or other posters') religious beliefs. Let's try to remember that, please. I realize there's an argument to be made for bringing that to the table, but obviously it's not adding anything to the discussion except acrimony. So, let's take a breath, step back, and try to get to the original discussion, please.

Thank you.