Whom would you rather have as a leader?
Someone who is willing to look clearly at the evidence and choose a position based on scientific facts, not what his religion tells him is the scientific fact. Religion should influence his morals, not his perception of science.
Such thinking could mean many different "sciences" for many different religions. What if Jehovah's witnesses decided to teach that blood transfusions (which they oppose) didn't really help? There is plenty of scientific evidence that transfusions don't help in many circumstances where it seems they should. And for years people were transfused in situations where doctors now wouldn't transfuse. So shall their religion dictate our science?
Another example is pain relief for women in labor. Many women don't need it, but some clearly do. Yet there was a point where many religious leaders and physicians fought against obstetrical anethesia or pain relief because the bible says, "in pain you shall bring forth children." I don't hear much about that now, though.
If you want India and China to be the preeminent powers in the world, keep teaching kids that science is whatever one's religion says is correct.
> If you want India and China to be the preeminent powers
> in the world, keep teaching kids that science is whatever
> one’s religion says is correct.
If you knew anything about the history of science, you’d know that the WORLDVIEW of origins has next to NOTHING to do with scientific advancement, because some of the greatest advances in science were made by those believing in intelligent design, including young earth creationists like Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal.
If you knew anything about recent History, you’d know that atheistic evolutionists comprise the overwhelming preponderance of the greatest butchers of human life the world has ever seen. They were their own gods, determining for themselves good and evil, who shall live and who shall die. Truth is something they make up as they go along.