Science is in no way immune from politics, ideology, or corruption. In a democratic society, though, science functions much as the media does. It exists separate from the state in order to preserve the objectivity that is so fundamental to its very existence. When politics infiltrates science, the results can be disastrous in some cases. The state could silence scientific data, for example, throw funding at science dedicated to nefarious projects rather than maximizing the potential for science to create meaningful change, social progress, and breakthroughs in multiple areas of research. In the Soviet Union, the fusion of science and politics led to some serious and lasting consequences including "toxic waste dumps, overuse of pesticides, and fossil fuel pollution," not to mention rampant superstitions and a lingering "fascination with medieval charlatans," (Josephson 613). Americans may feel themselves immune to the same consequences of ideologically driven science. Unfortunately, history has proven otherwise, as Christian fundamentalism has infiltrated politics since before the birth of the nation. Religious politicians and lobbying groups, like totalitarian Soviet leaders, have attempted to discredit science and are contributing to the "dumbing down of America," (Williams 1). According to Williams, no other wealthy or technologically advanced society struggles to justify science inquiry or fight to keep religion out of public schools. In the NOVA documentary Intelligent Design on Trial, the filmmakers point out that "all other major world religions have made their peace with science," and that evangelical and fundamentalist Christians in the United States stand alone with their dangerously backward beliefs. Religion is a valid part of culture and human identity formation, but religion has no role to play either in politics or in science. At the very least, the danger of mixing science, politics, and religion is a decrease in scientific literacy and the celebration of ignorance. Several examples can illustrate the specific dangers associated with an ideologically driven method of scientific inquiry. One example is related to environmental science. The denial of anthropogenic climate change has funneled valuable resources that could be spent on research and instead channels those resources towards public relations campaigns, lawyers, and other unnecessary sources. Another example may be even more sinister, although it is thankfully rooted in history: eugenics. At the turn of the 20th century, the eugenics movement sought to selectively apply what was then known about biology and reproduction with racist ideology (Alexander). Like other pseudosciences, eugenics masqueraded as genuine scientific inquiry but was really just characterized by clever manipulation of scientific jargon to appeal to the racist sentiments of the time. Contemporary pseudoscience has shifted direction towards issues like anti-vaccination and anti-genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Whereas arguments against GMOs have some rational basis in regards to ethics and food security, the anti-vaccination movement has long been discredited and yet remains salient. The anti-vaccination movement threatens public health, presenting one of the clearest examples of why it is dangerous to mix ideology with science.

Just as the anti-evolution/pro-intelligent design set profiled in Intelligent Design on Trial cleverly rebranded "creationism" as "intelligent design," so too have the anti-vaccination people resorted to rebranding and other tactics including "skewing science, shifting hypotheses, censoring dissent, and attacking critics," (Kata 3778). Many anti-vaxers, as they are called, revert to claims of personal privacy and sovereignty, just as the creationists claim that their religious beliefs are being threatened by state encroachment into science curricula ("What's behind the 'anti-vax' movement?"). Although the anti-vax movement is less about Christian fundamentalism and more about simple pseudoscience and irrationality, these two examples show how dangerous it can be to fuse ideology and science at all. Belief in UFOs or paranormal activity are fine for entertainment or even inquiry in other fields like the humanities, but science is defined by its rigorous methodologies. Science has threatened to undermine political and religious ideologies for centuries. Galileo and Copernicus undermined the authority of the Catholic Church to control what people believed about the universe. Instead of welcoming scientific inquiry, the Church clamped down until it could no longer -- just as the Soviet government clamped down on free scientific inquiry until it was no longer a strong political entity. Because science exposes truth, it often threatens superstitious beliefs. When those beliefs form the foundation of a seat of power, whether that is a government or a church, a battle is likely to ensue.

A key danger with allowing ideology to encroach on science is the celebration of ignorance, which serves only to stymie progress of all types. Isaac...

Asimov said the "strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge," (cited by Williams 1). The best way to oust ignorance from society is via social pressure and stigma against it, and yet in democratic societies the tendency can often be to coddle, comfort, and enable such views to propagate. Instead of censuring religious fundamentalists, they are given a voice in politics and in courtrooms. This has allowed for the perpetuation of irrationality and anti-intellectualism. A celebration of ignorance has been particularly visible in America more than in any other developed nation besides perhaps the United Kingdom, which has had an anti-vax movement of its own that is as old as vaccination science itself (Wolfe and Sharp). "Regardless of how the medical establishment feels about anti-vaccinationists, it is important to understand that they have deeply held beliefs, often of a spiritual or philosophical nature, and these beliefs have remained remarkably constant over the better part of two centuries." (Wolfe and Sharp 432). The constancy of such beliefs would not be dangerous if they did not impede public health, as with parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. The film Intelligent Design on Trial reveals another way anti-science ideology can be dangerous. From the burning down of the student's mural to the death threats received by community members and eventually the judge in the trial, creationists often have violent and criminological tendencies just as anti-choice people do.
When science is impeded by politics and ideology, the results can also be catastrophic for the planet. Environmental science has consistently shown that anthropogenic climate change could cause any number of problems from flooded communities and millions of displaced people, to the loss of species and reduction of biodiversity. Yet anti-environmentalism persists as a political ideology. Whether supported by "neo-liberal advocates of unfettered markets" or conservatives clinging to Biblical beliefs, anti-environmentalism can be construed as being antisocial (Hecht 149). Empirical research has actually demonstrated that those who do not believe in environmentalism tend to tolerate anti-social behaviors to a much greater degree: "anti-environmental behaviors such as wasting natural resources are a type of antisocial behaviors, (Corral-Verdugo, Frias-Amenta and Gonzalez-Lomeli). Thus, when politics impede science, the results can be catastrophic for individual psycho-social development and for public health and public safety.

The Soviet example further shows how too much political control over science can lead to ongoing problems. If the radical Christians had their way and swayed the government to teach creationism in schools, the result would be state-mandated religion and state-controlled science not much different from the Soviet Union. Granted, there are several examples of how ideology and politics already influence the direction of scientific inquiry. Many scientists are wooed by the military-industrial complex to design weapons, for example, and many others are hired to help pharmaceutical companies to maximize their profits rather than promote public health. The Manhattan Project is a perfect example of how science sometimes does serve political objectives in dangerous ways. Nevertheless, the overall trend of a free and unfettered science is toward progress and peace. Religion has the potential to destroy lives; science has the potential to save them.

Creationism rebranded as intelligent design is still religion; it is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Proponents of intelligent design cling to the belief that "intelligent design" is actually a scientific theory, and try and sell that story to legitimize their ideology. Yet scientific theories evolve over years, incorporating hundreds if not thousands of independent peer-reviewed empirical studies conducted with rigor and valid methodologies. When asked to illustrate why intelligent design is "scientific," one proponent interviewed in the film Intelligent Design on Trial drew a few names in the sand (which happened to be direct references to the Christian Bible, too, "Mary" and "John"), and claimed that those names would not have "evolved" there, but were put there by an intelligent creature. The analogy makes no sense, like most of the other illogical arguments made by creationists. A complex organism is not a design drawn in the sand. The argument of "irreducible complexity" is likewise irrational, proven so by the scientists who had to waste their valuable time showing how bacterial flagellum have in fact been reduced to lower orders of complexity to serve evolutionary ends.

What the creationist movement highlights is the grave danger…