I think I can provide a strong argument for it. Will that be OK? First, can we agree that creationism is a religious doctrine, and thus it's OK to frame this r

I think I can provide a strong argument for it. Will that be OK? First, can we agree that creationism is a religious doctrine, and thus it's OK to frame this roughly as a debate over the role of religion in science? Because, within that frame, Greta Christina has already made a more articulate argument against religion than I could [1]. The short of her argument is that because religion requires belief in improvable things, that makes it "uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self- correction". And what are some of the most basic principles of science? Criticism, questioning, and self-correction. If the man on the street were to believe, say, that relativity was wrong, that the world was flat, and that it was actually supported on the back of a giant tortoise, what would that imply about their ability to reason on other topics? Is it wrong to conclude that, for example, they would believe similar fairy tales in fields like economics, politics, social justice, and environmentalism? The one thing that all of those fields have in common, which makes them more vulnerable to religious principles than other fields of science, is that their support is controlled almost entirely by a democratic population. So, if you have a large population which believes in creationism -- and therefore can easily ignore all of the overwhelming evidence for evolution in a field of concrete scientific study -- then you likely also will have a large population which believes that the country should close its borders and wage wars against people of other faiths. The default response to such policies is to try to overwhelm it with facts. You say, "these economic policies haven't worked in X, Y, or Z countries in time periods A, B, or C" ... but the problem is that you're dealing with people who place no stock in things like facts. (If you're jumping to argue that I'm wrong to draw this correlation, you should be prepared to handle the example of Romney and one of the most fact-challenged campaigns in the history of U.S. politics.) I think there are lots of other good arguments too, like the fact that it's hard to attract the world's top scientific and engineering talent to a country full of crazy people, which means that you can probably kiss your industrial leadership goodbye. But, honestly, that's not my argument. For me, widespread belief in creationism is bad for society because it's a gateway belief system to lots of other really bad things. (Aside: it looks like I get to take up the mantle of Science Evangelist this evening on HN; how much the poorer HN is for it.) [1]: http://www.alternet.org/print/story/143912/the_top_one_reason_religion_is_harmful http://www.alternet.org/print/story/143912/the_top_one_reaso... -- by the way, I am not at all a militant atheist. In fact, I don't even describe myself as an atheist any more due to the current religious-like fervor of New Atheism. I have no problem with people who hold religious beliefs. However, she makes a compelling point that is appropriate as a reference here.