> Is there some political imperative that is served by keeping the voting population ignorant about science? Certainly there is. Maybe not in an evil way like

> Is there some political imperative that is served by keeping the voting population ignorant about science? Certainly there is. Maybe not in an evil way like "hey! let's keep all the people ignorant so we can control the world", but mainly to keep the status quo. Consider this: Science teaches to question everything, so you can understand the rationale about how and why something happens the way it does. But... having a bunch of people questioning everything, even the very fabric of our society, is usually not something very amusing to the ones that happen to be the current rulers. That's why, from the ancient world to this days, the higher studies where reserved to the elites... the less likely part of the population that would turn against the current structure of society. For example, during the Dark Ages, the church saw science as the works of the devil (and sadly, some of them still do [1]).... or more specifically, something that would make people question about their doings, their position it society, and so on... And usually, things doesn't go so nice to the people in power, when more and more people starts questioning their world. Look at what happened to Luis XVI, Nicholas II, or more recently in the Middle East. Or looking even closer... the anti-globalist movements and the environmental movements, as (not-so-extreme) examples of people questioning the status quo. Finally, in some countries it's very public that some politicians think and say that is much easier to handle an ignorant population, than a well educated one. [Edit: Added] [1] A few years ago, when I asked a very religious fellow student about the existence of fossils, his answer was that some where the remains of the animals that lived before the great flood, and the older ones where there just to "test our faith".