Politics is foundational to people. People conduct science. Therefore, politics will never be separated from science. Eliminate all government, egos will still prevail and politics will always play a role in the scientific community.
No doubt. Improving scientific processes like removing bias is an ongoing process. We will always be learning new things and devising new methods for learning new things.
I agree in a well rounded education... but by choice, not requirement.
Yes, of course. I'm a libertarian. I also hate mandatory/government/whatever education. This is kind of a devil's advocate sort of thread (sort of?) where we talk about our least libertarian positions. So I'm only addressing the reality we're stuck with right now which is public schools. Biology is considered by many to be part of what should be core knowledge and if you have biology, evolution is pretty core to that. Most biologists agree.
Indeed, there are plenty of effective biologists who are creationists. If it were vital, they simply could not function. Yet, they do.
Who's an example? It's an honest question, btw. Not trying to make a zinger. I have not investigated this claim at all. My gut inclines me to think they're probably either in a very peripheral field or specialized field or even not directly involved in science, i.e. postulating theories and testing them for validity and so on. I would not expect them to be taken seriously by other biologists so if you actually find one such as a college professor in a non-religious school, I would be honestly surprised.
Without people to conduct it, science does not exist...it's not a thing, it's a practice. You cannot separate ego and politics from science. ergo... it's a religion. Or religious-esque
Agreed that it's a practice as I said, and not a set of beliefs. It's flawed, as I acknowledged, and can always be improved. Religios-esque... maaaaaybe occasionally. But that's what I would call bad science. I'll try one more time to point out what I see as a fairly solid line between bad science and religion.
Science "expert" presenting bad science: Here's is what I believe to be true and here is the evidence for what I believe. *Presents poor evidence that didn't use good scientific method. Might even say any evidence to the contrary is "bad science" in a hypocritical fashion.*
Religios "expert": Here is what I believe on faith alone and you're just supposed to believe it on faith alone also. *Discourages any attempt to make evidence or a scientific method relevant to the discussion, possibly even with threats (like Hell).*
The "bad science" guy might question someone else's scientific methods and even be very hypocritical about it, but he at least pays lip service to the scientific method and the idea of presenting evidence for one's belief.