Replies

Surely even the evolutionists on this forum can agree that this is a waste of our tax dollars. If anything, we should all be against the evolution of big government.

Unless you're a libertarian who does not believe in any government role beyond law enforcement and the military, everyone agrees that education is a legitimate role of government. Public education is supposed to help ensure all the voting citizens out there are well-informed and have a proper understanding of our system of government. It is also important that the public has a good understanding of basic science, since so many issues today involve scientific matters. (E.g., nuclear power; stem-cell research.) So it is only reasonable that science museums, which play a significant role in educating the public, should be supported by the NSF (whose mission is to support scientific research as well as science education).

The NSF and the large government role in scientific research and education are an outgrowth of WWII. In WWII we discovered how tremendously important science was to our national security (in the Manhattan Project, the B-29 project, and cryptanalysis). After WWII, Vannevar Bush wrote a famous report, "Science: The Endless Frontier" that predicted the modern world we now live in, and outlined the role of government to get there. On October 4, 1957, Sputnik reinforced the importance of the United States maintaining scientific and technical superiority. It is no less important that the US maintain scientific superiority today. Science education is a critical part of this equation: Currently, we are importing a large fraction of our scientific talent. This cannot go on forever since China and India are now developing to the point where it is more attractive for their talent to return home. We must cultivate our own talent. This includes using scientific education, such as museums that can capture the imagination and excite children about science.

"Unless you're a libertarian who does not believe in any government role beyond law enforcement and the military, everyone agrees that education is a legitimate role of government. Public education is supposed to help ensure all the voting citizens out there are well-informed and have a proper understanding of our system of government."

You are either incredibly naive or mis-informed.

The roots of public education in the developed world, and more specifically, in the US:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/realschool.shtml

Look at the quotes and writings on the benefits of public school by he premier educators of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Mann, Dewey, etc.), and you will find the real reason why we have compulsory education.

Unless you're a libertarian who does not believe in any government role beyond law enforcement and the military, everyone agrees that education is a legitimate role of government.

First of all, there is no provision in the Constitution for the federal funding of education. Secondly, we have all seen what happens when different groups try to use public funds to push their ideas on the rest of the country.

I oppose evolution-only education in public (i.e., government) schools because I don't think I or anyone else should be forced to pay for it. On the other hand, I think the creationists who complain about it shouldn't be dumping their children into the cesspool of the government-run education system in the first place.

We must cultivate our own talent. This includes using scientific education, such as museums that can capture the imagination and excite children about science.

Sure, but let the market decide. Fighting for control over the public purse strings is the wrong approach. Who gets to decide what is and isn't "science"? As so many on this forum are fond of pointing out, evolution has nothing to do with studying the origin of life, the universe and everything. So who gets to decide what theories on that particular subject are to be included in a publicly funded museum?

The public funding of education in general is a socialist trap. It also fuels these never-ending debates between creationists and evolutionists. I don't mean to detract from the article that started this thread, but eliminating taxpayer dollars would help end many of the problems.