Why was there a candidates debate on religion but not on science?

Politicians go where they think the votes are. Like it or not, it makes more sense in America's current political environment to appeal to religious voters than to the scientific; most Americans proclaim a religious faith, and the religious faithful have been more active and organized for a long time.

If scientists want to have a more powerful voice, they need to organize better and speak out more--not less. I'm not sure how many scientists there are in America, but they would do well to model themselves after the Jewish lobby. Jewish people are only about 2-3 percent of the population, but they have an influential voice in Washington. Even if it's not much of one, they're still given more credence than many other groups. This isn't a slam against Jewish people, or belief in a conspiracy; it's an acknowledgment of savvy political activism, nothing more. They're doing exactly what any smart minority group would do: Get organized, speak up, get involved! It's the political equivalent of the squeaky wheel gets the grease; sitting around on your hands and hoping someone will speak for you ain't gonna happen. Thinking you're entitled to participation gets you nothing. More groups could learn from them.

lol, Dude! Science is based upon constant experimentation that changes the outcome with each piece of new knowledge that comes from research. Science reveals itself a little at a time, and we must constantly be in the loop to keep up with the changes.

On the other hand, God has given us complete knowledge of who He is and His plan for our lives and the future of all mankind. By reading and understanding His words, we can make personal choices about how we each fit into His master plan. Personal interpretation is what gets everyone excited and passionate about religion. Had God been the kind of leader who told us we HAD to do this and that, then we would do it without question, and life would be boring for sure.

Science cannot really debate; facts are facts, as far as they go until the next experiment or research. Religion offers interpretation, choices, and opinions, based upon reliable information that will never change. Everything in religion is debatable, with every person claiming the truth based upon his own interpretation.

It would be interesting to see how Hillary handles a religious debate...

I think you are confused. You DO know that evalution is a religion, right? Every beliefe on the planet earth is religion. No1 was there when the "Big Bang" happened. We DO know that Jesus was a real person, and the bible is made from old scrolls and stuff. The scrolls said that Jesus would come (it didn't really say the name Jesus, but you get the point). Some of the things the bible fortold were not up to Jesus to choose, so we know that he really DID exist and he really DID fullfil the profecy, so he must be the Lord God Almighty in the flesh. The Bible has more science in it then any other religion. (You never told if you were a Christian or not.)

Because speaking about religion only talks about "how good of a person you are", while a debate regarding scientific issues would call for action.

A science debate among non-scientists would ask candidates where money should be spent. "Should we demand cleaner air" = "Should we spend more money".

Scientists want to know if the government will support such experiments as the Hadron Super Collider or more space exploration.

A religious debate only compels a candidate to pose moral positions and beliefs without actually committing them to financially stand behind projects that will shape our future and increase our understanding.

Saying "I believe" does not really demand anything of a candidate that they already have not committed to.

because then they would have to discuss the really important issues you mention and expose themselves as a bunch of know nothing do nothing ******* that they are.

If they wanted to really debate jesus the debate should be "would we be no better or no worse off without the jesus cult"the answer is probably NO .

THE ONLY THING THAT IS PREEMINENT IS SELF INTEREST

Because religion requires feelings but science requires facts. The political delegates are much too busy mud slinging to actually study scientific facts too. It's much quicker and easier to stick with feelings.

i'm extremely helpful that your declare with regard to the "growing to be minority of secular scientist that are disagreeing with Darwin's Evolutionary concept and are leaning in direction of an smart clothier" is a flat out LIE. on account that IDiots have a shown record of being LIARS, this modern-day lie does not marvel me. "by way of the trial and in numerous submissions to the courtroom, Defendants vigorously argue that the analyzing of the assertion isn't “coaching” identification yet particularly is in basic terms “making pupils conscious of it.” in certainty, one consistency between the Dover college Board individuals’ testimony, which replace into marked by way of selective thoughts and OUTRIGHT LIES (My emphasis) decrease than oath, as would be suggested in greater element decrease than, is they did not think of they mandatory to be knowledgeable approximately identification because of the fact it replace into not being taught to the scholars. We disagree." (footnote 7 on website 40 six) --------------------------- additionally, this type of "scientist" could might desire to handle here certainty: "After a looking assessment of the record and suited caselaw, we come across that on an identical time as identification arguments could be actual, a proposition on which the courtroom takes no place, identification isn't technology. we come across that identification fails on 3 distinctive stages, every physique of that's sufficient to circumvent a call that identification is technology. they're: (a million) identification violates the centuries-previous floor regulations of technology by way of invoking and allowing supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, useful to identification, employs an identical incorrect and illogical contrived dualism that doomed introduction technology interior the 1980's; and (3) identification's unfavourable assaults on evolution have been refuted by way of the scientific community." (website sixty 4) ---- The data are in ! identification is shown to be not technology in any respect. Palin needs to dedicate an Unconstitutional act. apart from, she pronounced that when the courtroom made that looking and selection. Why does Sarah Palin HATE the U. S. lots ?

Christ has been debated for years, nothing new with this...He is the king of kings and Lord of Lords..the great I AM

science doesn't exist.