[microgood]

I am being a (bit) over-the-top in this series of posts, but there is a serious question of misfeasance and malfeasance when a political body attempts to redefine science, or to mandate the teaching of non-science as though it were science.

Possibly. But what is "science" and what is "non-science" could be a slippery slope. If I was on a jury, I would consider global warming science to be "non-science" but I would not be willing to convict anyone of a crime for promoting it or believing it.

IMO, it fits the classic definition of "high crimes": offenses against the state that can, by their nature, only be committed by officers or employees of the state.

You are getting over the top again. Do you really think this sticker mounts to a hill of beans in the big scheme of things anyway? This is more of the tit for tat between evos and creationists. But now you want to the color of law to enforce your point of view. I really think this is a bad idea.

[Virginia-American]

If I was on a jury, I would consider global warming science to be "non-science" but I would not be willing to convict anyone of a crime for promoting it or believing it.

There is a significant difference from biology here; there really is *scientific* controversy as to how much if any global warming exists, how much if any people are responsible for it, its effects, and so forth.

On the other hand, there is no scientific controversy about the existence of evolution and the dominant role Darwin's theory plays in it. The evidence for not only the existence, but also for the detailed shape of the primate family tree, or the horse's, or carnivore's, or whatever's family tree, is much less ambiguous than the evidence that global warming is because of fossil fuel use.

And again, I'm not saying criminal/high crime penalties are appropriate for "promoting or believing" something, but that they are appropriate for public officials who try to force science teachers to lie to children

Do you really think this sticker mounts to a hill of beans ...

No, it's not as important as a lot of other things, like reading and math. But that doesn't make it unimportant. Teaching kids that politics can and should trump science, and telling them lies about what actual scientists think and do, is morally wrong. (Actually exposing them to politics trumping science may not be that bad, if you think kids should learn cynicism early and often)