1) China has successfully tested the ability of their stealth interceptor to take down a plane.
2) China demonstrates near-instantaneous ICBM launch capability.
Full of hipsters, "Makers" and trashy music.
Most of the drugs they use to treat AIDS and cancer come from NIH research (although usually the pharmaceutical companies managed to squeeze in and get a patent for them).
I don't know the breakdown per-disease, but FYI, only about a quarter of all drugs were invented with public funding. In most cases academic research greatly informed the development of new drugs (as intended), but there's a huge gap between "this mutation causes bowel cancer, maybe if we inhibit that protein it will stop progression" to "this drug stops bowel cancer". (Huge gap = many years, at least hundreds of millions of dollars.) In the case of AIDS, academic research has been focused on vaccines, whereas the current best-in-class anti-HIV drugs really have been mostly the work of the drug companies.
Okay, so you have a single example from the 1920s, well before the basic principles of molecular biology were discovered. Plus a couple of vague examples like this:
Ten years ago a colleague of mine working in epigenetics at a large genomic institution was told by the boss that epigenetics was not a real part of genetics and that he should change subjects to “something more serious”
This is a favorite ploy of pseudo-scientists: anonymous references to someone working in mainstream science whose revolutionary work is suppressed by the hostility of the rest of the faculty. I call bullshit. You can always dig up a few geriatric senior scientists, whose best work was done decades ago, willing to pooh-pooh some newer field of research. Most scientists have their own favorite examples. This is not evidence for an organized conspiracy of suppression. As I said before, epigenetics was already a well-established and growing field when I started - and people were already doing "epigenome sequencing" ten years ago.
And I repeat: the importance of "Lamarckian evolution" to the process as a whole has still not been demonstrated. Again, it is important not to conflate the role of epigenetics in organismal development and cellular regulation with the issue of inheritance. Clearly epigenetics is more important to inherited traits than was previously assumed, but we have a handful of examples versus a huge amount of evidence for Darwinian evolution. Presumably we will eventually converge on some new "modern synthesis" that incorporates elements of both, but anyone who argues for the primacy of Lamarckian evolution is grossly overstating the case.
I distinctly remember a college biology teacher explaining the case of field mice who developed webbed feet in one generation after a field was flooded. He said that regardless of the data, we were to reject the idea that an adaptation emerged as a response to stimuli. If that's not suppression, I don't know what is.
So, one college biology teacher, discussing an anecdote that I can't seem to find on Google, is evidence of "Darwinists suppress[ing] information about inheritance of acquired traits" as a monolithic group? Surely you can do better than that.
There are no fossils of life before the Cambrian explosion.
Not true! But it's very, very sketchy and weird compared to what comes afterwards, and doesn't provide a neat, continuous path to the animal phyla we're more familiar with. We certainly don't have a fossil record that explains the origin of complex multicellular life - just lots of small clues and educated guesses based on modern forms and molecular evidence. It's a fascinating scientific question but extremely difficult to study, unfortunately, which is why it's almost always going to be an easy target for nitpicking creationists.
How is asking critical questions about view points being pushed onto children with my money establishing religion?
Stop playing dumb. We all know that the only reason these "critical questions" (which never come from actual scientists) are ever introduced into a classroom is to promote a religious alternative. Pretending otherwise is just disingenuous and insulting. At least Ken Ham has the honesty to admit this is his goal.
My money is being used to expose children to views I don't agree with.
My money is being used to enforce laws I disagree with, and buy weapons I don't approve of. It's called representative democracy; deal with it, or move somewhere else. We do, however, have a specific clause in our constitution about establishment of religion, and the courts have decided that teaching religion in taxpayer-funded schools is included in this prohibition. (This does not equate to disallowing all criticism of science; you are welcome to spout any nonsense you wish, as long as you do not expect the government to pay for it.) If you're unhappy with that, work on getting the 1st Amendment repealed, or move to another country. I'm sure you won't find much support for teaching evolution in, say, Somalia. (But they're probably not going to be wild about your religion either.)
I have no idea how monetary policy or vaccine reactions are relevant to this debate, or what they have to do with religion. Nor are politics particularly relevant, since you can find scientists of all ideologies working productively without making extravagant pseudo-scientific claims.
As a biologist, I do know that nearly every single objection I have ever encountered to evolution - and, in particular, common descent, especially as applied to humans and apes - has ultimately been driven by a religious viewpoint, usually a belief in the literal truth of the Old Testament. (I was going to say that the panspermia advocates were the biggest exception, but even they aren't really arguing with the fact of evolution, but the origin of life, which is a different matter.) This goes doubly for the age of the earth, which is even less controversial than common descent. The creationists are also almost uniformly not practicing scientists (or even trained as biologists, in all but a handful of cases); I have yet to meet any biologist who continues to be productive while completely ignoring 150 years of scientific evidence. Conversely, I've known a decent number of biologists who were religious, but did not see the need to distort every scientific finding to fit into their theological worldview. (Francis Collins and Ken Miller are two of the most famous examples, but I've never met them, although I think I used Miller's textbook in high school.) In fact, the one who found "intelligent design" the most infuriating was a conservative Catholic.
In summary: why shouldn't I assume that creationists are religious? You've given me absolutely no reason to think otherwise.
In the past 30 years Darwinists suppressed information about inheritance of acquired traits. The Lamarckian-looking genetics that explain this are now FINALLY being accepted as science and are called, as a group of phenomenon, "epigenetics".
This simply demonstrates your ignorance of the field. Epigenetics is far more fundamental and complicated than Lamarckian inheritance - it's a basic mechanism of genetic regulation in all multicellular organisms. This wasn't even remotely controversial 15 years ago, when I started studying biology; any freshman biology course would cover the subject. It still isn't terribly well understood, but what can you expect when we still don't know the function of half of our genes?
What was genuinely controversial was the extent to which epigenetic regulation affected germ cells and was therefore heritable. It was not controversial because "Darwinists" (whatever that means) tried to suppress information, it was because none of the loudest proponents of the theory had found molecular evidence to support it. This is now slowly changing, as biologists are realizing (yet again) that genetic regulation is even more complex than they imagined.
In any case, none of the new information contradicts modern evolutionary theory; likewise, it does not have any relevance to the issue of whether modern life forms were designed or evolved. It also doesn't overturn the "central dogma" of molecular biology or prove that Lamarck's overall hypothesis was correct. We still have every reason to continue to believe that the unmodified genome is the most important carrier of genetic information and determinant of phenotype, and the extent to which epigenetics is heritable is still an unsolved debate. That makes it a fascinating target for more research, and I'm sure there will be more startling discoveries (and perhaps Nobel prizes) in the near future. I'm also very confident that any new discoveries will be made by actual scientists doing actual research, not theologians.
So how did the guy in his basement (who sounds from your description to be OK) endanger society?
Jeez, try reading the link:
"Although his homemade reactor never came anywhere near reaching critical mass, it ended up emitting dangerous levels of radioactivity, likely well over 1,000 times normal background radiation."
"EPA scientists believe that Hahn likely exceeded the lifetime dosage for thorium exposure"
Would you want to live next door to that? I certainly wouldn't, and I'd be perfectly happy living downwind of a well-run and inspected nuclear power station. And I've been working around sources of radioactivity for the last ten years - the difference being the use of well-established containment procedures and professional handling.
Don't you have a cross to burn or something?
taking away people's freedom to choose
Stop being hyperbolic. No one is advocating taking away your freedom to choose; you have every right to believe what you want, and to home-school your children or send them to fundamentalist private schools. You do not have the right to have your ancient superstitions treated as equivalent to scientific research, or to push your theology on a captive audience of other people's children.
Because that's exactly what third graders are doing when they ask questions in the classroom. Advancing their religious doctrine. Down with inquisitive third-graders!
It's not the third-graders who are campaigning to have theology taught in biology class, it's grown adults who should know better. And there's nothing wrong with students asking tough questions, but I doubt any third grader has actually read Darwin, or done any research into "missing" intermediate species other than whatever nonsense they were told in Sunday school.