I'd like to comment briefly on a "forgiving" environment in science, from my perspective as a chemist. I think, in general, the environment in industrial chemistry is fairly "family friendly". There's been a lot of progress in the last decade or so, as younger male scientists have gotten used to having working wives. But there are still attitudes of "this is the way it's always been, and you'd better get used to it."

For example, having a gap on your resume is often a big problem in science. It's seen as a sign that you're "not serious" about chemistry. It can suck your career into a black hole, and you can end up practically unemployable. But really, over a 40 year career, does it really matter if you took a couple of years off? Does that automatically make you a bad scientist? I don't think so, but there's still that mindset, that you have to follow this rigid career path and that's the only way to be a "good scientist". (That's an issue that affects men as well as women, by the way.)

At the moment, there are plenty of chemists desperate for jobs, so it doesn't really matter if a few get sacrificed to the altar of "this is the way we've always done it". But there are talented women (and men) who might have done valuable research, who ended up leaving the field, when they would have stayed if the environment had been a little more flexible.

I haven't visited West Virginia in a few years, but my Mom's family is from West Virginia, and I used to spend summers there. I never found it to be particularly racist. Conservative and very, very Christian, yes, but not racist, especially compared to the Southern states where I grew up (and even compared to parts of New York, where I lived more recently.)

The biggest issue with West Virginia is that the job situation there is brutal. There are very few jobs in many parts of the state, and a lot of people leave to find work. I look at my own family - very few of the younger people with college degrees have stayed in the state. So you're left with the old and the poor, who tend to be more conservative. But these are people that could be swayed by a Democratic economic message. West Virginia was a Democratic state for a long time.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think he needs to work harder to get that economic message across. It's unfortunate that it's being lost in all the hooplah about Wright and flag pins and other irrelevant issues.

Another factor is the job situation. Whenever people talk about job reductions, it's always in terms of the blue collar factory worker. But the once-secure middle class white collar jobs are being reduced as well - it's just happening one by one instead of in a big chunk, so it doesn't get covered on the news. We've become a "service economy", and those jobs, even if they pay decently, are often less secure. (If the economy really goes downhill, those jobs will be the first to go.) You will have to change jobs, change cities, change career fields - it never stops. You may have periods of unemployment. That may give you more freedom, but it may also add to your financial insecurity and take big chunks out of your savings. I talk to my Dad, who had a rock solid job he could count on for his entire career, and I think "wow, what would that be like?"

I agree with the previous posters that getting angry won't help, and will just be counterproductive. Science doesn't have to mean giving up God. There are lots of books and web sites that discuss how belief in God can be compatible with believing in evolution. But young earth creationism isn't compatible with science, and hopefully he can help his friend see the difference between the two things.

Cary asked why we get upset at teaching children "colorful myths". If they were being taught as myths, I wouldn't mind. But they're being taught as science, and taught in place of real science based on evidence. It's no different than teaching kids that 2+2 is 5.

I don't think the problem is even evolution, in particular. Most of us don't really need evolutionary theory in our daily lives. But what it teaches these kids is, if there is physical evidence in front of you, and it doesn't fit with your belief system, then you should deny the physical evidence. Don't try to find the truth, or ask questions, or look for more evidence, because those things don't matter. All that matters is whether the "facts" correspond to what the Bible says. If the facts don't seem to fit, rearrange them until they do.

That's a mindset that goes far beyond evolutionary theory. And it goes against any definition of science. Of course, not every kid is going to swallow this view entirely, but if you're teaching science, you should at least try to teach the fundamentals of the scientific method - which is ask questions, look at the information, and figure out what's happening. Not, take the facts you like and fit them in with your belief system. I don't think you can call that "science".