The big risk in practicing science is that you may not like the answer it provides. The previous administration, when faced with results it didn't like, decided to censor the results. I don't see how this makes any sense. How can a government make decisions and policy when the facts are hidden or discredited based on predetermined biases?
More like this
GOP Leader Lies About Bank Reform Bill on CNN...
Karmen and Razib have both taken the Belief-O-Matic quiz.
Here's a comment that represents a widely held misconception about the evolution of religion:
Troy Britain has done some poking around regarding the RSVP system that Expelled is using:
Yes, society can make ethical decisions without science. Best and current knowledge predates science and even with science society still can only work with the current state of knowledge and understanding.
That said, it has to be noted that the quality of ethical decision making cannot improve without science of some sort. And a lack of improvement, a failure to understanding the imperfection of the ethical decisions based current knowledge and/or a desire to improve, is, in its self, a lack of ethics.
Best and current knowledge is itself based on cruder forms of science.
One can make decisions of ethics without science; however, the choices resulting from such methods tend on balance to be less moral in consequences than those made with science helping.