Illiterate candidates
Rob Price

2006 study by the National Science Foundation reported only one-third of Americans believe Darwin's theory of evolution is well supported by evidence. Additionally, the Foundation noted, one-third of Americans believe the theory of evolution is not supported by any evidence. Not surprisingly, one-third of Americans say they don't know enough about evolutionary theory to have an opinion either way.

Which brings us to the current crop of candidates for the U.S. presidency.

In a candidates' debate earlier this year, Republican John McCain was asked, "Do you believe in evolution?" McCain appeared to freeze for a second, probably doing a quick calculation of the coming political fallout. Then, being a decent man, he answered truthfully: "Yes."

At that point the moderator asked if there were any candidates who did "not believe" in evolution. Three out of 10 raised their hands: Sen. Sam Brownbeck, Rep. Tom Tancredo and Gov. Mike Huckabee, whom polls currently favor to win the Iowa caucuses next month.

First things first: Technically, one does not "believe" or "not believe" in the theory of evolution. Belief is what someone may or may not have regarding a religious tenet. In contrast, evolution is a theory people may or may not recognize as an adequate explanation (i.e. supported by scientifically gathered evidence) for the development of different species, such as our good friend homo sapien.

But kudos to Sen. McCain for his willingness to admit the scientific legitimacy of evolutionary theory. I personally would like to watch Hillary Clinton bat the question around.

And there's a remote possibility I may get my wish. An organization called Science Debate 2008 is calling for a candidates' debate focusing on science and technology issues. The debate would focus on three areas of science: the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy.

Let's be clear: This would not be the sort of debate in which candidates are asked whether they "believe" in evolution. That is a fundamentally silly question, and Huckabee - scientific illiterate though he may be - has a point when he argues he's running for president, not writing the curriculum for an 8th-grade science class.

But the U.S. president should not be a scientific illiterate, and here is why: Each of the three subject groups identified by Science Debate 2008 is connected to complicated issues that presidents will likely have to address. Climate change and renewable energy research obviously are two critical environmental issues. Stem cell research and global diseases such as AIDS are obvious health and medical issues. Science and technology policy must address issues such as space exploration and domestic and international energy policies.

The ways in which presidents engage scientific issues sometimes have critical and long lasting effects. Surely, President Kennedy was no scientific genius; yet his commitment to the space program created a legacy of technology that in turn helped created a resilient, modern economy. The flip side of Kennedy's embrace of the space program was President Reagan's refusal to recognize the long term effects of the AIDs crisis.

So when Gov. Huckabee downplays the governmental significance of his own personal beliefs regarding evolution, he is wrong to suggest presidents don't need to understand basic scientific processes. Without some scientific grounding, a president's handling of science-related issues will be driven by polls, instead of sensible facts. Haven't we had enough of that?

One hundred years ago, the Democratic Party nominated the Biblethumping William Jennings Bryant to run against Howard Taft for the presidency. Taft was a Unitarian, which Bryant claimed meant he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Bryant further argued American voters would never elect a president who did not believe Christ was the Son of God. The voters disagreed and elected Taft.

A century later, we are still having the same weird argument, as Huckabee questions how Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, can be "a Christian" and expresses his own religious faith through the rejection of modern science.

That is a dangerous road to go down. If Science Debate 2008 gets its wish to sponsor a candidates' discussion of scientific issues, voters would quickly get a sense of who has the intellect and judgement for the Oval Office, and who does not.