Somebody who believes that the Earth is only a few thousand years old should not be making any decisions related to science no matter what degree they hold. If this is what Democracy gives us, something is wrong. If you believe that someone like him should be on the committee, challenge me. I don't mean constitutionally, I mean logically.
Why not ? Even supposing the person is wrong in being a creationist, it hardly calls into question his ability to make good judgements on legislations as they affect the practice of science and technology. Science and Technology are vast and overlapping fields and aren't confined to an evolutionist's fickle over a creationist belief. And let me state this upfront: I don't believe in evolution.
I have some personal issues to take care of so I cannot dedicate much time to this site for the time being. I was on here for a few days and learned that I was not prepared for debate on important subjects. Debating is much different than I thought it would be. The outcome of this debate is not important to me anymore. I believe somebody like Paul Broun does not belong on that Committee because if his mind is not capable of realizing that our planet is more than a few thousand years old, his mind is not capable of making science based decisions that will affect this country and the rest of the world. I do not have the time to dedicate right now to make my argument sound valid, so I am basically conceding in every single debate in my list.
Administrative skills are more important. Someone can be way more knowledgeable in science but lack the leadership skills to get support for bills which can advance acience and technology in the US. It's safe to say people were more ignorant about science in the 18th century and before; but that didn't stop them from being able administrators. Just because someone makes poor choices or holds false beliefs about acertain aspect of the world hardly means he/she is incapable as an administrator. Neither would it make any sense to assume an eminent scientist would be in a position to rally legislators to pass bills tha will favour science education in the country.
Your view forces one to think in a tiny box wherein belief in evolution is necessary to adjudicate matters on science and technology well. Never mind that politics deals with a wide range of issues and (just as crucial) a coherent dealing with each as they relate to others. It is very possible to effect good policies regardless of a belief (or not) in evolution. That's how evolution gained traction in the first place.