Support for Louisiana repeal effort

I agree. The citizens of Louisiana should be able to decide how their taxes are spent with relation to public schooling and what is taught in those public schools, as long as what is taught does not violate the Constitutional rights of the students. To be quite frank, I do not view removal of evolution from the science curriculum to be a violation of a student's Constitutional rights. Teaching creationism would be a violation, but that is a separate topic.I really do not think that the fervor, at a fundamental level, over removing evolution has to do with Constitutional rights. It has to do with superstition replacing reason. Over the last five hundred to a thousand years we have slowly progressed down a path leading away from superstition towards reason. This new law in Louisiana is a backwards step on this path. Rejecting scientific conclusions based solely on our emotional responses runs counter to the progress that our species has made over the last several centuries. I really doubt that you can find "Genesis is wrong" in any science textbook, nor does any science teacher push that. There are still a few biblically based geocentrists around, so do we not allow heliocentrism to be taught because geocentrism says that the bible is wrong? How far do we take it?It is not science teachers that are teaching "evolution disproves the bible". It is creationists that are teaching this. Teaching evolution does not promote atheism. There are millions of theists who accept the theory. Atheism is not promoted in science class, no matter how much you try to pretend that it is. If creationists would stop teaching children that christianity is false if evolution is true then there wouldn't be a problem.

The EPA is looking to fund scientific research in order to determine how pollution effects ecosystems. ID/Creationists are looking to push religion into science class. Gee, I wonder why the EPA funds scientific research instead of foundations that are more interested in pushing a religious agenda?ID/creationists are not getting money from the EPA because they are not interested in doing science. In fact, ID/creationists are more interested in doing away with science. It is really that simple. You mean those naturalistic theories that push the atheistic dogma that chemicals combine through naturalistic means? Shouldn't we stop teaching this atheistic drivel until someone is allowed to teach that supernatural fairies glue atoms together? Where is the money funding these positions? Projection much?I have seen herds of kittens that are more well organized than atheists. Also, atheism has no unchangeable beliefs. At it's foundation, atheism is a shared DISbelief. Atheism is defined as a LACK OF BELIEF. Lightning appears abruptly. Do we also need to present Zeus science whenever naturalistic origins for lightning are discussed? Do we have to present a supernaturalistic explanation for every single natural phenomena? If not, why not?

Red Herring. Please try to stay on the topic. You claim that funding scientists is funding atheism. Please explain. Is this your argument? Really?Let's get this back on track. You claim that the EPA is funneling money into pushing atheistic doctrines by funding scientific research. Please support this claim with something other than red herrings. So atheists write books about atheism and that makes atheism an organized religion? C'mon marc, you can do better than this.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Yes, just like atheism isn't involved in basketball. Need we remind you that there are hundreds of thousands of theistic scientists? Need we remind you of the thousands and thousands of theistic biologists who accept the theory of evolution? This is an example of the bullshit we keep talking about. False conflation. Evolution is not atheism. Why do ID supporters avoid scientific conferences and scientific journals? Why shouldn't we shout if ID is avoiding the scientific process while insisting on being taught in science class? Evolution is not atheistic. Where is it taught dogmatically? Cite or withdraw.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.