Sigh.
1. Name me a Christian or other Creationist of any consequence who has proposed that we change over to a theocracy.
2. Failing that, name me a Christian or other Creationist of any consequence who has proposed that we ban whole scientific disciplines.
3. If you can even provide an example that qualifies for item 1 and/or 2, provide evidence that any significant number of Christians, Creationists or voters of any stripe supported them or took them seriously.
4. Opposing research into a certain field is not the same as opposing science. Sometimes there are excellent reasons to oppose a line of inquiry, such as the arguments against embryonic stem cell research that are based on the inherent ethical problems.
5. Bringing up Galileo is like bringing up the Crusades: No relevance to today's realities. Moreover, given the many contributions to science by devout Christians, it's sort of like a Christian painting every scientist as a Pete Singer clone.
Heck, I even remember reading a story or watching a news cast that featured some nutjub that wanted to stop the LHC from launching, because she believed we were "playing God" or some other such nonsense.
So what? That's the science equivalent of Fred Phelps. Would you judge every Christian by Fred Phelps, or every scientist by Doctor Mengele?
#2 - "Whole scientific disciplines"? Nice qualifier there.
#3 - Any significant number? I'll let the ratings for the 700 Club speak for me.
#4 - Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.
#5 - It is a valid point. How in the world can you claim that Galileo has no relevance to today when you just brought up stem cell research? Woo!