Do you hear the silence? That’s America talking about science.

In the good old days, George W. Bush (and Al Gore and Nancy Reagan and those crafty folks promoting intelligent design) made science something we argued about. Evolution was in the courts, stem cells were on trail in the nation’s highest office, there was talk of sending humans to Mars and questions about whether finding a cure for cancer might not be a better use of that $50 billion, and global warming was the villain in a popular and widely despised movie.

It was sometimes frustrating. But at least we talked. Fast forward to the election season, and the new quietude is downright frustrating. But perhaps not surprising.

The rallying cry by some for an intense several months was not so much “listen to science” as “don’t question science.” See, I have a chart! I have fossils! Are you stupid?!

In the demand to be heard, the most vocal proponents of science began to sound a little like the very faith-based policymakers they disdain. Maybe it’s not enough to let science speak for itself. But you can bank on this: Americans don’t like to be told what to think, and in many respects the situation is now like this: A bunch of important and smart people on two sides are still steaming and screaming at each other across a scientifically soundless vacuum of voters who are worried about their health, safety and paychecks.

Whatever the reasons, science is now uttered in political speeches only as an aside or part of some generic promise. Everyone on both sides and in the middle has clearly, um, evolved.

Embryonic stem cells? Intelligent design? Carbon emissions? Interplanetary exploration?

Iraq, illegal immigration, health care and the economy.

But if you really want the candidates to talk about science, there’s at least a place you can express your desire. At sciencedebate2008.com, you can sign on to the following proposal:

“Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.”

In his comprehensive blog on the the topic, MSNBC’s Alan Boyle says, “Shawn Lawrence Otto, a member of ScienceDebate2008’s steering committee, said organizers are working to arrange an event in mid-April and invite the viable candidates, Democrats as well as Republicans, to participate.”

That would be cool.

But in this presidential election, now presenting us with a Mormon, a woman, an African-American and potentially the oldest person ever inaugurated as president, the most surprising thing of all, it seems now, would be a debate about science.