Attn, NYC Reasonoids: Bailey Debates Politics of Science, Tues. Jan. 10, Free Wine!

Nick Gillespie | January 6, 2006

The Donald & Paula Smith Family Foundation

Present a debate

The Politics of Science:
Are politicians giving us the right prescriptions?

Featuring
Chris Mooney
Seed Magazine
Author: The Republican War on Science

Ronald Bailey
Reason Magazine
Author: Liberation Biology

Wesley J. Smith
Discovery Institute
Author: Consumer's Guide to A Brave New World

Moderator
Harvey Shapiro
Contributing Editor, Institutional Investor

From embryonic stem cell research to the fate of Terry Schiavo, science has given us a whole new set of political issues. Politicians are now compelled to have a position on everything from performance enhancing drugs in sports to global warming. In taking these positions, are politicians listening to the scientific community or are they responding to the interest groups essential to their election? Do politicians strike the right balance between the desire for progress and ethical implications of that progress? What role should elected officials and government play in encouraging desirable scientific research? Does science education accurately reflect the scientific consensus? Is science too important to be left to the scientists?

January 10, 2006
6:30 P.M. Prompt
(Free and open to the public - Reception to follow)

The Graduate Center
The City University of New York
365 Fifth Avenue, New York
(Corner of 34th Street & 5th Avenue)

RSVP by going here.

Comments

|1.6.06 @ 11:19AM|#

huzzah! I will attend and drink elixerous beverages to science!

Jeff P.|1.6.06 @ 12:06PM|#

But what about the politics of dancing? The politics of ooooooooooooo feelin' good?

|1.6.06 @ 12:21PM|#

Given the background and stance of the three debaters, just where the hell is the "debate"? Why aren't there any anti-science Christianists and religiously blinded dopes at the table. Now THAT would be a good debate.

|1.6.06 @ 12:30PM|#

"anti-science Christianists"

Well, there IS the guy from the Discovery Institute.....

|1.6.06 @ 3:11PM|#

I'll be there...I really have no reason not to, since the event is so close to where I work I could just about throw a paper airplane out my office window and hit it.

|1.6.06 @ 3:18PM|#

Well, there IS the guy from the Discovery Institute.....

Or your could look up "Dr." Ken Hovind.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!

Sorry, I can't think of that guy without laughing my ass off.

Yogi|1.6.06 @ 5:53PM|#

Apparently from reading a few tidbits of Wesley Smith's blog, he thinks that the entire human therapeutic cloning field has fallen apart due to the South Korean scandal. All the other scientists are apparently going to close up shop and go home.

|1.6.06 @ 6:46PM|#

Akira - thanks for mentioning one of those loons by name.

Talking about the irreducible complexity of a bombardier beetle's defence mechanism, he then comes to this conclusion: "One would think that these wannabe scientists would get excited about such a proof and it might occur to them that if there were a designer, then their lives need not be empty, futile and completely pointless as they are now."

I don't know where this fucknut comes off saying that my life has no meaning just because I don't believe in his invisble sky god.

As a matter of fact, I feel quite amazed about how wonderful life and the rest of the universe are without believing in some intelligent designer. It makes me think that with a little curiosity and human ingenuity we'll be able to know everything there is to know some day. I don't want there to be "mysteries" about His Greatness.

And I think that's what makes those fucks scared...they're so small-minded and egocentric that they can't believe someone could simply believe in living for livings sake and being good because it's the right thing to do, not because some imanginary being says so.

Sorry for the rant, folks, but that shit chaps my hide! :)

Jim Hu|1.8.06 @ 4:11AM|#

I was wondering how this could be passed off as a debate about science without any actual scientists on any of the sides.

As far as hot buttons go, I have to admit that I find the cover of Bailey's book really annoying...there's an object that bears a superficial resemblance to DNA, insofar as it is a double helix. If this is supposed to be DNA, however, it has apparantly been liberated from such structural constraints as having the correct handedness or pitch.

Jim Hu|1.8.06 @ 4:12AM|#

Oh, and as for the debate...what do they plan for after all three participants just say NO?

|1.8.06 @ 12:49PM|#

Sounds great! Wish I could attend. Will this event be recorded and shown, perhaps on CSPAN?

|1.8.06 @ 4:04PM|#

But what about the politics of dancing? The politics of ooooooooooooo feelin' good?

It's in the papers, Jeff. It's on your TV news.

Re: The wrong-handed DNA helix on the cover of Ron Bailey's book: I think it was previously established that this is a bit of DNA from a mirror universe -- the one where Spock has a beard.