Debate

Hi there,
(so I think I've just about run out of ways to say hello.)
I just finished a debate in my Capstone class. It was over a bill that is going before congress soon about the use of antibiotics as growth enhancer in meat animals. My group was on the side in favor of the legislation. The other side was supposed to use scientific reasoning to show that Congress should not pass this law. Well, clearly because there is so much information out there concerning the evolution of bacteria in response to antibiotic resistance, it was clear that the Pro side was in the best shape.
The Con side attempted to counter our arguments about animal rights and the clear evolutionary problems associated with the practice by pointing out how the specific wording of the bill was the main, if not only reason why the bill should fail. This made me realize this is probably the only way a group fighting against science can make a point. I don't know for sure, but I imagine that this type of argument is one of the main types used to fight off environmental regulation in our government. How sad.
If there is a clear evolutionary problem, supported by clear evolutionarily evidence, that can be solved quickly through some easily enforceable laws, why not go for it? The same is true about climate change. I hate that we see the problem, but we cannot solve it because of misinformation and silly, insignificant problems with regulatory practices.