2 threads done with mild interest. Oh well still respectable and logical debate is something I'd still like although I don't think I should have to ask for it.
Now most debates are over religion and science and their coexistence. And don't worry I might have a thread for that eventually. However, it's not hard to see how over time they haven't necessarily coincided well. For instance, stem cell research, global warming, abortion, wildlife reserves and nature protection, and even evolutionary theory. Now of course I guess it's easy to see that even if I did exclude religion, they probably have a very important factor in this debate anyways.
Let's break down one factor though... global warming. Now of course there are numerous people that think global warming is a myth, a hoak, a conspiracy theory to control us all or whatever it is. That is fine and you are allowed to hold that theory. But we are not going to be talking about the polarized and "media-corrupted" form of global warming but the actual scientific evidence and backing that shows whether it be a natural or man-made rise in the Earth's temperature. For the most part, this issue is not high among many Americans. When it comes t 2 wars, a failing economy, and the rise of "fascist socialism" (I have to be funny every now and then) it just doesn't seem to have too much importance. However, it could be easily stressed that the threat that this poses to our planet as a whole is not only important but maybe the most important issue.
The problem is when it enters political discussion it is clear the issue becomes more about either a moral issue, political views, or some form of polarization. But, does the issue ever get any form of discussion on an actual scientific discussion. If they support the idea of global warming is occurring they don't do anything about it or if they don't they will deface it. However, no one in politics ever asseses the issue as a whole.
Now I didn't just pick on global warming for no reason but the other issues have similar problems. It seems for the most parts that scientific issues become more about your position rather than actually assessing the problem. Maybe because it is viewed as of little importance or simply because they no they can help their record. Either way science in politics has not been going so hot lately. Now give them some credit there is a lot of things in politics that does help to coincide with science and help the country thereof but why is it we don't get that public perception of that.
So basically my question is how can science coexist with politics? Is the problem because politicians don't assess the issues properly or because it is of so "little" importance that they don't make big deals about it? Even further how important do you think some of these issues are in relation to politics? Finally is religious, partisan and moral contexts corrupting political debate on such issues?
