I don't take a strong position on evolution one way or another because the outcome doesn't affect me in any way. You're just fine with having the next generati

I don't take a strong position on evolution one way or another because the outcome doesn't affect me in any way. You're just fine with having the next generation of schoolkids taught that "God Did It (or maybe aliens)" is the only acceptable explanation for the origin of life, then? Because this fight started with religious zealots trying to prosecute teachers for going against scripture, and it's hard to have any doubt that the clowns pushing Intelligent Design would do something similar if people stopped smacking them down. It might not matter to you whether evolution is right or not, but that's not what the fight is about - the fight is about whether or not scientists should have to poll the idiocracy and make sure they won't offend them before reporting their findings. And yes, I'm arguing slippery slope, maybe - but the argument in favor of worry is a lot more compelling when we've just finished clawing our way up from the bottom. It seems like the more we know the more we lose sight of what we still don't know and don't proceed with much humility. Absolutely. And with climate science, I'd tend to agree with you, we don't know all that much and might want to be careful about how much we trust the preliminary findings - the data appears to be messy, incomplete, and difficult to work with, and the field started out so highly politicized that it's hard to know who to trust. Evolution, on the other hand, is not even in the same ballpark - evidence is plentiful, it all agrees with the theory, and consensus is overwhelming (and one big difference between bio and climate science is that biologists don't tend to go into biology because of political leanings, so there's far less selection bias amongst researchers).