> "Science" has a special status, and that has been abused to push religious belief ("science tells us"). This is less the fault of scientists and more the fau

> "Science" has a special status, and that has been abused to push religious belief ("science tells us"). This is less the fault of scientists and more the fault of science writers in the media. This should not be a part of the debate when it comes to public policy like this. What he's saying: > The legislation’s sponsor says by banning scientific theories, the policy aims to prevent kids from being taught things that aren’t true. Is a talking point from the Creationist playbook. I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and biology was the only impacted curriculum. It of course is based on the (intentional) misunderstanding of what is meant in casual English as a "Theory" (i.e. an unproven hypothesis) versus what is referred to in scientific lingo as a "Theory" (i.e. the accepted model of how things work, because it makes excellent predictions). These people need to have this explained to them in a public forum, and forced to explain why they insist on pushing an incorrect view of the issue.