If I can't find any science that says what I need it to say

I've mentioned many times how various sound scientific studies are distorted by the Fundies -- and, yes, there are time when the "science" itself is flawed -- so I won't repeat the many distortions here. I will mention a particularly nasty case recently put together. The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has put together a 121 page article to present to the American Psychological Association to "prove" that gays can become straight. NARTH brags that they covered 100 years of research and their bibliography has 700 entries. That's nectar to the guys at Box Turtle Bulletin, who went to the library and proceeded to look up those references (or at least start). Of the references examined so far the NARTH paper has either distorted the results or warmly embraces a conclusion created through a type of therapy we would find horrifying today (aversion therapy using strong electrical shock).

Enough of all that. On to why it matters.

The people who distort sound science do it because they need the cachet of science to support their unsound arguments. Yes, that means there is no sound science that supports their conclusions. But when someone stands before the local school board and misuses science, what is the audience going to remember? Calling the speaker a bigot probably won't dislodge the nugget of distortion. One might even call them on their bad conclusion and they could respond with, "but that doesn't disprove that homosexuality isn't a dangerous lifestyle."