Better yet, lets start insisting that all politicians pass scientific literacy tests, if for no other reason than amusement.

If teachers are going to be held accountable, why not politicians?

Much of "Obama's" FDA is filled with people staffed during the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II years. Scientific illiteracy knows no political boundaries. Its a symptom of the breadth of scientific illiteracy in our entire population. We should also keep in mind that scientific illiteracy is also to be found even among the scientifically literate when dealing with other disciplines of science.

You have hit the nail on the head! We play wack-a-mole with ourselves.

As of March 26, 2014, it is estimated to number 7.154 billion by the United States Census Bureau (USCB). As of April 4, 2014, the United States has a total population of 317.8 million (USCB). Thus, the population of the US is about 4.4% of the planet's human population, not 33.3%. This is yet another example of Americans thinking of themselves as more important than they really are. By population alone the rest of the world has been outpacing the US for some time. At current growth rates the Chinese economy (5 year average GDP at 10.62%) will surpass that of the US (5 year average growth rate 0.207%) in size in about 10 years, assuming they don't choke themselves to death producing products largely for US consumption.

Who erroneously seems to think that temperatures only occur in the U.S. or North America. Globally the mean temperature continues to rise.

If you want want to directly observe evolution such as trout and pitbulls, all you need to do is live longer.

Actually, its easy to observe evolution in action by looking at bacteria and other organisms with rapid generation times, such a fruit flies. That evolution can be observed in fruit flies has been repeatedly demonstrated for the past 130 years. It is now so completely understood that this is possible that whether it can be demonstrated or not is no longer scientifically relevant, having been answered in the affirmative. Outstanding questions pertain to the consequences of specific examples of the evolution observed.

Exactly. The forefront of modern morphology currently rests in establishing the quantitative functional links between particular combinations of genes, quantifiable environmental factors characterizing the direction and magnitude of selection, and the morphology defined in the context of analytic geometry and geometric algebra. As we learn more about how genes generate morphology and how both are influenced by selection, expect many more quantitative predictions.

Your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Science deals with experimental outcomes that establish truth about the natural world. Either the ideas tested confirm a hypothesis or they reject it. "Dialogue" is irrelevant. A well designed scientific experiment leaves no room for ambiguity. Science is not sophism. Don't confuse the two.

"Congress isn't "all idiots"...for every bullshit anti-science law Congress passes there are Democrats/Progressives who vote against it"

True, but not enough of them. Therein lies the crux of the problem. Science and consequently humanity desperately needs more democrats and less republicans in office. Just like difference between chimps and humans in DNA, that 1% difference results in a very big difference in consequences.

I guess you haven't heard about the Martian rovers. We have landed on Mars.

"To be fair, nobody can verify evolution or global warming in their own garage (without lots of money or time)."

Actually, they can if they tried. In the first case all one needs is a few petri dishes and various media and a few strains of bacteria, all readily available in a garage. Likewise, with global warming. Bill Nye the science guy showed a very nice experiment of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere upon heating a few closed flasks and measuring the temperature with a couple of heat lamps, also easily done in a garage.

The problem is not a monetary one. Rather its the difference between clear, logical analytic thinking and the lack thereof. Fundamentally, both are rather simple and testable in the context of scientific experiment.

The scoundrels are particularly eager to lead people to believe that there is no difference. Compare politicians objectively and there are BIG differences. Even, given a diet of dog shit, that 1-2% difference becomes the difference between survival and death. Choose wisely or suffer the consequences.

Reporters are mere window dressing for the advertisements. Don't kid yourself, there is plenty of reason in deception.

They report what they are paid to report. As consumers of news we must be wise enough to turn to those with some modicum of credibility. We need more objective ways to keep score that are independent of the media. In the absence of intelligence, AI is at least a viable option.

With the consequences of ever increasing global warming and the consequent collapse of ecosystem, intense selection for much smarter people is just right around the corner. The only real question now is whether given the intensity of selection that shall soon occur shortly, there will be any humans smart enough to survive. Most people have little idea of what is about to happen as the pH of the oceans falls another 0.1 to 0.4 in log hydromium ion concentrations. A 0.1-0.2 pH drop is already in the cards as the oceans come into equilibrium with current atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the next 50 to 100 years so the intense selection regime is already baked into our planetary system.

"Somehow we need to find a way to promote science as a way of thinking and do so without hurting the feelings of the religious right."

The religious right are NEVER going to accept science, since science inconveniently exposes the inconsistency and irrelevancy of religion to understanding the natural world and hence this makes the scientific method a threat to the religious right.

The outcome is pretty clear, either science wins or humanity looses. The reality is that there is only one of these two outcomes to choose from. Take your pick and take your stand. One can either be for science and survival or against science and for human-sustaining ecosystem collapse. One cannot stand on a fence made of razor wire as there is no middle ground.