AUGUSTA – A televised statewide debate featuring all three Republican gubernatorial contenders may not have revealed a breakaway frontrunner Thursday night, but the varied topics did produce some provocative moments for the candidates.

The 8 p.m., hour-long program on the Maine Public Broadcasting Network was moderated by Fred Bever and Susan Sharon, who attempted to elicit both thoughtful and spontaneous reactions from state Sen. Peter Mills, former Maine Rep. David Emery and state Sen. Chandler Woodcock.

Maine Republicans will go to the polls June 13 to determine their party’s nominee for the Blaine House.

Some of the most interesting interplay among the candidates came midway through the debate when each was allowed to interview the candidate of his choice. As a result, Mills was able to turn a question that was supposed to embarrass him to his own advantage. Emery was pressed to admit that, if elected, he would decrease current benefits allowed under state law that permits public financing of political campaigns. Meanwhile, both Mills and Emery seemed to push Woodcock – the most conservative of the trio – even further to the right on the issue of religion in public schools.

Emery, who perceives himself as the moderate between Woodcock and the more liberal Mills, brought up the issue of the state’s high tax burden and asked Mills why he had supported raising the sales tax from 5 to 6 cents a year ago. Mills explained he had offered a temporary sales tax increase as an alternative to a plan favored by Democratic Gov. John E. Baldacci that involved borrowing more than $400 million to balance the budget. The rest of the answer easily segued into Mills’ lengthy attack on the governor’s policies.

“If this state has one problem that’s bigger than the tax problem, it’s the debt problem, and I’m the one who discovered it,” Mills said. “There’s $5.3 billion of debt that we owe. … Just last week the Democrats did it again with the governor’s leadership by racking up another $50 million to $100 million in debt to satisfy pension requests from [police and firefighters]. We’ve got to stop this.”

Given his chance to ask a question, Mills reminded Woodcock he had stated he favored the teaching of “intelligent design” in kindergarten through grade 12. Intelligent design is a view of creation that challenges Darwin’s theory of evolution and promotes the idea that life was developed by an unseen force.

“I was wondering upon further consideration whether you thought that was an appropriate thing to do in the sense that it seems to me – and I go to church and I’m a religious person – that intelligent design is more of a religious principle than a science,” Mills asked.

Woodcock said he believed all possibilities and alternatives should be presented in school, after which the students and their individual families could make their own decisions.

“I don’t think we should be exclusive when it comes to presenting evolution or creation or intelligent design if you choose to call it that,” Woodcock said. “As a teacher of 26 years, I’ve tried to present available notions to the students and allow them to make their own decisions along with their families. In this case, it’s a very contentious discussion and it’s very important that we don’t exclude the other opportunities.”

Emery disagreed, saying he didn’t believe either intelligent design or creationism should be taught in the schools.

“This is a religious doctrine,” he said. “It’s a matter of faith; not a matter of science.”

Later in the program, Woodcock and Mills – both publicly funded candidates under Maine’s Clean Elections law – managed to call Emery – a privately funded candidate – on his feelings about the future of the funding mechanism. In response to a question from Bever, Emery acknowledged he had called the Clean Elections law “welfare for politicians.” As governor, Emery then said he would not support future funding for gubernatorial candidates and instead continue the program for legislative candidates only.

“What concerns me is the possibility of spending $4 million, $5 million, $6 million, however many million dollars on the gubernatorial race when that money can clearly be raised from other resources,” Emery said. “I would just ask people to think about it. … Would you rather use [the money] to reduce property taxes, would you use it to fund education [or] repair roads and bridges around the state? Maybe it could be used for additional lands for the Land for Maine’s Future Program. Any one of us can think of a number of areas in the state where that money can be better used.”

Mills defended the Clean Elections law and said 80 percent of those running for state office relied on public funding. He said the law had succeeded in placing limits on spending while reducing the level of special interest contributions in campaigns.

“In David’s case, he’s accepted thousands of dollars from the tobacco industry,” Mills said. “I really wonder whether they could expect some sort of special access to him.”

Woodcock agreed, saying Mainers had approved the Clean Elections Act and that it was almost “obscene” to see the amounts of money invested in politics at the national level. He did add, however, that Emery’s remarks had caused some problems on the home front.

“I couldn’t tell you how surprised I was; I didn’t know how to break it to my wife that we were on welfare after I heard David’s statement,” he said.

The Maine Public Broadcasting Network will replay the GOP gubernatorial debate on radio today at 1 p.m. and air the show on television again at 2 p.m. Sunday.