anti science

On July 28th, 2016, Hillary Clinton became the first woman to ever be nominated for president on a major party ticket in
Social media can keep people stuck in "echo chambers."
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, America's tiny but loud voice for Intelligent Design, is once again trotting out their thoroughly discredited argument that good science education requires that our public schools "teach the controversy."
We live in a time when many of our most-pressing challenges--public health, climate change, genetic engineering, pollution--have a profound scientific dimension. We must not elect a president who chooses to stand outside the scientific community.
"Good luck with that!" This is the most common response we get when we talk about ScienceDebate.org, the non-profit founded to try and persuade the presidential candidates to attend a debate solely on science issues, including technology, the environment, and medicine.
Equating science with atheism is one of the most dangerous byproducts of America's culture wars. This strange polarization portends disaster, as the country divides into factions that cannot find common ground on the way the world operates.
Vaccines are a great triumph of the human intellect over ancient evils. That triumph must not be dimmed by ignorance, paranoia, and demagoguery.
University students should rightly be exposed to a plurality of viewpoints as part of their intellectual growth, rather attending the "flock of sheep association of like-minded individuals."
Rand Paul knows that if he can get voters to resent scientific research as much as they resent minorities and poor people, then he and his fellow Republicans will be free to ignore inconvenient facts about climate change, population trends, and other data that goes against the Republican agenda.