I agree. Many of us (scientists as well as religionists) prefer talking with others of a like mind. We don't want to bother talking with "the other side"
m rather stupid and it's frustrating for him to deal with my stupidity at times.
Some scientists enjoy the debate but it does get old. And I'll tell you what is really at the heart of the problem we (scientists) have with ID type proponents. They are so often liars. The dover trial was a great window to the world of ID proponents and the lies they tell. Scientists may get things wrong, but science is eventually self correcting. Results get checked and rechecked and the truth doth win out in science. Not so with religious people. No lie, even after an oath is taken, is too large to tell as they showed us when they claimed that Panda's and People was not about creationism and ID wasn't the same thing. Then a first draft of the document was found and it was shown that they just swapped the word creationism for Intelligent Design.
Proponents of creationism start with a belief and will do and say almost anything to support that belief system, including lying and deceiving. Any rational person, after reading the Dover transcripts would "get" the fact that teaching ID is against the law of the land but ID proponents still fight on, just changing their position to "teach the controversy" and trying to couch it as meaningful.
Debating punctuated equilibrium vs. genetic drift in a population is one thing. Dealing with liars in order to defend the teaching of solid scientific principals is another entire thing and yes, many people get angry and tired because debating with religious people turns into trying to educate them or trying to point out the falsity of their positions or to simply catch them in a lie when they make some stupid claim about a scientific fact that is not true. All too common.
I find THAT exercise to be boring and I want nothing to do with talking with religious nut cases. I'm happy to talk with honest people who are willing to listen to reason and who will put forth reasoned arguments for their position. Sadly, few religious fundamentalists fall into that category in my experience.

GK Chesterton once wrote the following about bigots: That they avoid one another. Bigots are people with competing views who carefully argue around each other without taking each other head-on. The Atheism/Religion debate has consisted mostly of this.

I know what ID proponents mean when they say "teach the controversy," and it is pretty much what you have described. However I know what I wish it meant: I wish I could have a beer with Chris Hitchens (who is, by all accounts, funnier and less abrasive in person). Or that I could have a rational discussion about the implications of religious belief vs. atheism, their place in public life, etc. without having to listen to people calling other people "idiots."

Sadly, on the internet, the "discussion" is at once more polarized and less engaging, consisting largely of people talking to other people who already agree with them about people they disagree with in the most scathing terms. I find this whole exercise boring and I want nothing to do with this issue unless I can talk with people who are not bigots.

Polar bears are moving south from the artic seas because of the melting of large chunks of ice. This gives the impression to local Inuit tribes that the polar bear population is higher than ever. The Inuit are wary of western, scientific knowledge and rely instead on their traditional knowledge, or Inuit qaujimaningit (IQ). The Canadian government, in turn, made a treaty with the Inuit that they would include IQ-friendly policies in the territories in which they live.

So basically, Canada is following ancient, traditional knowledge instead of science for managing the polar bear populations.

http://www.researchandpractice.com/articles/2-2/dowsley-1.pdf

In the UK all students have RE classes where we learn the basics about the major world religions. It's sometimes taught rather superficially ("so, which religion has which holy day?") but nevertheless it still strikes me as a good idea to promote some understanding of world religions. As a positive side effect, any calls to teach creationism in science can be butted off by saying that that's what RE is for.

(Of course, in my RE lessons we sometimes had spirited discussions...!)

Yeah, we do a little of that. When I was in school we got exposure to that in our world history and cultures class, but not much. A world religions class would go miles towards helping Americans understand their own religiosity. I think many schools avoid it not because of "separation of church and state" but out of fear of offending religious members of that school. There are many for whom an accurate portrayal of their own religion or the religion of others would be patently offensive.

My undergraduate history essay this week is the wonderful 'Why is America so religious?' so naturally I'm reading around the subject (rather than just rely on DA :P). I know that education in America is largely handled by the individual states (?) but is it true that religious education generally isn't taught?

In the UK all students have RE classes where we learn the basics about the major world religions. It's sometimes taught rather superficially ("so, which religion has which holy day?") but nevertheless it still strikes me as a good idea to promote some understanding of world religions. As a positive side effect, any calls to teach creationism in science can be butted off by saying that that's what RE is for.

(Of course, in my RE lessons we sometimes had spirited discussions...!)

You really do need to be specific as to what the examples have to do with anything.

Except that Exxon's scientists aren't going to publish anything that contradicts the pre-chosen conclusion, RJ Reynolds isn't going to publish things that say smoking isn't good, Ford isn't going to publish things that...

and Dow Corning aren't going to publish anything that shows silicone breast implants to be dangerous, Nokia aren't going to publish anything that shows mobile phones causing cancer, vaccine makers aren't going to publish evidence that MMR vaccine causes autism...

This is because they aren't looking at the evidence. They're only looking at their evidence. Not that they can't be right, of course, but the scales are so heavily tilted in their favour that their conclusions are generally questionable.

There are many ideological groups on the other side of those corporations about which pretty much the exact same things could be said though about different issues. If you for some reason believe that a simpler life without the complications of modern technology is a good thing then you would be very likely to exaggerate the dangers of modern technology and understate the dangers of doing without it (which can be very real and much larger than what our technology provides).

Not to mention that some on the other side are themselves corporate shrills for competitors of whatever their target is.

Then of course there is normal incompetence which can happen on both sides although that actually seems to be less likely with corporations that have employed real scientists (as opposed to activist groups that often don't have any).

Modusoperandi:

"Paid industry shill" should set off the bullshit detector (or make it twitch, at least). It's not a slam-dunk against their arguments, but it's certainly not a point for them.

"Not even a slam-dunk", it's not even a point against them although it is a useful indicator that you need to have a close look at their arguments.

bestonnet "Even better is looking at the evidence, it's quite possible that the people with the vested interest in their grandchildren are deluded and those looking towards next quarters earnings completely honest."
Except that Exxon's scientists aren't going to publish anything that contradicts the pre-chosen conclusion, RJ Reynolds isn't going to publish things that say smoking isn't good, Ford isn't going to publish things that... This is because they aren't looking at the evidence. They're only looking at their evidence. Not that they can't be right, of course, but the scales are so heavily tilted in their favour that their conclusions are generally questionable.

"Not the case with global warming but that doesn't mean it won't be on all issues, such things as "paid industry shrill" only serve as explanations, not arguments."
"Paid industry shill" should set off the bullshit detector (or make it twitch, at least). It's not a slam-dunk against their arguments, but it's certainly not a point for them. Of course, I represent Big Hippy. Take from that what you will.

Between people whose vested interest is their grandchildren and those whose is the next quarter, go with the grandkids.

Even better is looking at the evidence, it's quite possible that the people with the vested interest in their grandchildren are deluded and those looking towards next quarters earnings completely honest.

Not the case with global warming but that doesn't mean it won't be on all issues, such things as "paid industry shrill" only serve as explanations, not arguments.

Actually, Canada only permits hunting gay-married polar bears. It's a travesty.

Actually, Canada is more progressive than that. It's Palin's state up there that goes after the gay polar bears (married or not).