Saddleback over Science?

Forgive me for taking us back a few weeks, but since the Unit is in its infancy we have a lot catch up on. In particular, I want to talk about Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency.

Let me begin by stating clearly that this is not a criticism of any one religion or any one person's religious beliefs. Rather, it is critique of the role that such beliefs have come to play in the American political process. This is a distinction that too often goes unnoticed, and one that has serious implications for the way in which we engage in democratic dialogue.

The most egregious aspect of our candidates' participation in this event does not, in fact, have to do with their participation. Instead, it is their failure to take part in a debate on issues that arguably have a greater, more tangible impact on the lives of Americans.

Science Debate 2008 is an organization dedicated to increasing public understanding of the candidates' policy positions on science, technology, and innovation. In addition to renowned scientists and engineers from across the world, the effort is supported by such prestigious institutions as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

That John McCain and Barack Obama chose to participate in a forum on the role of religion and values before one on science and technology speaks volumes about the nature of the voting public. America is strengthened, economically and militarily, through a dedication to math and science education. Our entrepreneurs flourish, in part, because they can capitalize on public investments in basic research and high-cost technologies. Americans become safer and healthier because of innovation in medicine. In every respect, America is better off when we dedicate ourselves to scientific and technological advancement.

Despite these clear realities, though, Americans don't vote based on policy positions, particularly when it comes to issues as poorly understood as science and technology. They vote on values. Consequently, politicians spend an inordinate amount of time and energy talking about things that are, at best, negligible in terms of their impact on our country. Granted, we need to make sure our future president is not a Nazi-sympathizer, but shouldn't we be equally concerned that he demonstrates active use of his gray matter? Does a candidate's personal feelings about his greatest moral failure really matter more than how he would handle investments in research and development? Does his propensity to suspend logic to accommodate the religious right really make him fit to be leader of the free world, or is his position on multinational technology partnerships more important?

This issue serves as a microcosm of what is perhaps the scariest, most disheartening truth about contemporary American politics: The issues upon which Americans cast their presidential ballots are too often fundamentally different from those that actually affect all of our lives. Every person is free to practice whatever religion he or she chooses, but when those beliefs begin to impact American science, technology, innovation, military prowess, economic competitiveness, education, and health care, they become fair game for objective evaluation and criticism. So when our presidential candidates choose to take part in a forum on religion and values before one on science and technology, let me be among the first to point out such insanity.

Please make an effort to support Science Debate 2008. It falls upon the reasonable among us to ensure that the most important issues of our generation are heard and understood.