You're rambling a bit, and that makes it hard to follow what you have written.
The teaching of science has nothing to do with religion, and vice versa. If you want to argue that it is important to give children a good grounding in moral religious beliefs, then, fine, I have no quarrel with that. We need a moral framework in order to have a decent society.
The problem is, you're trying to mix religion and science. I specifically chose the example of mad cow disease concerns being irrelevant to the logging industry, because both mad cow disease and logging (forest management) are important issues, and people feel strongly about both of them, but they have nothing to do with each other. Just like science and religion have nothing to do with each other, yet they are both important.
I do feel sorry for you. If you feel that the only way your faith is valid is by "proving" that scientific theory is false, then you have weak faith. That also means that YOU believe that if the world was not created literally according to Genesis, then there is no God, no Jesus, no salvation. It is your weak faith that makes you upset with scientists pursuing science. Scientists do not believe as you do. The faith of religious scientists is not challenged by any scientific data they collect; their faith is strong.
No matter what you keep telling yourself, scientists are not out to disprove the existence of God. We can't do that. We're out to learn as much about the world and universe as we can.
"because both mad cow disease and logging (forest management) are important issues, and people feel strongly about both of them, but they have nothing to do with each other"
Actually they do - I give you the USDA.