Why teach science?

To avoid starting foolish wars, for one thing.

From an item in Science magazine (7 December 2007, p. 1538, subscription req'd):

In 2002, U.S. intelligence officials claimed that the Iraqi government owned a number of mobile labs capable of producing biological weapons. After U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq, the labs were revealed to be production facilities for hydrogen used to fill weather balloons. In 2005, a government commission said the error was due to a lack of scientific expertise within the U.S. intelligence community.

Somebody learned the lesson, and now the biological research program will be opened to external peer review.

Keep examples like this in mind when your local school board starts thinking that science curricula need to be diluted with faith-based "alternative 'theories,'"
bogus "criticisms," or discussions of misrepresented "strengths and weaknesses" of the subject.

It's not like that war

At his press conference today, President Bush declared that "Victory in Iraq will not be like victory in World War II."

Yeah, he's probably right. It might be more like our victory in Viet Nam.