A top science question the candidates for president should answer is:

If scientific findings contradict the Bible which do you disregard?

436 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Rich BraedtRich Braedt shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    13 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Ben RothBen Roth commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        There are not bad questions, but the answer to this one is easy: You disregard anything in the Bible which is contradicted by science.

      • WaltWalt commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I'm surprised that this question has the most votes - I agree with garold, Casey, Dave, and Matthew. This doesn't start a conversation, it basically ends it.

      • garold stonegarold stone commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        A high percentage (%) of comments on this question say that this otherwise attractive and rather pithy question is politically unsuitable, and potentially counterproductive, as the TOP question to ask a Presidential Candidate -- maybe as a followup question for Some candidates, but not not as the TOP question for ALL presidential candidates. So, with full respect for everyone who has voted for this question so far ...

        Only a few places lower on this list, there is another question that gets to the very SAME points, but i think it is more suitable for the TOP question for ALL presidential candidates:

        *** "How will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?" ***

        I think Shawn Otto hit the sweet spot with his phrasing of that question. The question is general enough to cover most concerns about the need for science-based policy and its obstruction by ideology (religious and non-religious; right and left). The question is open, so as to draw out substantive answers from the candidates -- not just yes/no sound bites. The question does not have any biased presumptions that would make it easy to dismiss rhetorically. -- So, strategically, i think that question should be the TOP science question for presidential candidates -- using other high scoring questions as followup, if feasible.

        If you happen to agree, please consider voting (or moving your one or more votes) to that question :-)

        *** "How will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?" ***

      • Casey PeakCasey Peak commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        No politician in their right mind would answer this question. It isolates either voter base no matter how its answered. Thats a very bad thing. Instead we should be focused on creating thought provoking questions. This is a "Do you belong to this portion of the population or that portion" question and should not be allowed.

      • DaveDave commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This is a very bad, loaded question. Matthew's rephrasing is much better.

      • Matthew VannetteMatthew Vannette commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        @Lynne Schultz: How about this: "Do you feel the need to reconcile any discrepancies you notice between scientific findings and religious texts, and if so, how do you do this?"

        I think it removes the Judeo-Christian bias, forces an examination of Mai's concerns, and removes the possible stigma associated with "I would disregard the Bible." It also somewhat sidesteps william's issue with the internal inconsistencies of the Christian Bible as a candidate can always cite the purpose of the Bible as addressing aspects of humanity fundamentally different than what science addresses.

      • Lynne SchultzLynne Schultz commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This should be rephrased somehow. Sadly, I don't think anyone could say they would "disregard" the Bible and still get elected to a high office. A smart candidate might say something like, "Well of course I wouldn't disregard the Bible, but I would reinterpret my understanding of it. After all, it was written in a time and place very different from our own." However, I don't think we should encourage candidates that might be on our side to say something that would make them unelectable like "I would disregard the Bible!" I hope someday candidates will be able to say such things and get away with it, but until that day I want our kind of candidates to actually win elections.

      • williamwilliam commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        How is it possible to elect knowledgeable presidents when 50% of the voters are as incomprehensibly ill-informed as Mai. The 4 canonical gospels contradict each other by themselves, conflict with historical facts, and require orders of magnitude more assumptions than the scientific explanations we have at this point.

      • ScottScott commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        It is too easy for a candidate to give a wishy-washy non-answer to this question; I don't expect it would shine much light on the differences between candidates.

      • MaiMai commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This question is superfluous; worse still it's fueled by bad bias. From my longstanding work as a science communicator, there are no real contraditions between Science and the Bible; only differences in understanding.

        'Answers' to questions of cosmology and origins from all are at the moment hypotheses at best.

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I disregard my understanding of the Bible.
        It is kind of "pushy" to think my understanding of the Inerrant Bible is without error.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base