Missouri Anti-Evolution Bill

No, that is not correct. How can it be "PRO-truth" to advocate the teaching of biased religious ideas in a public classroom that are clearly false and merely dressed up enough to convince a lazy minded and scientifically illiterate layman? Why should science teachers be forced be legislative fiat to teach lies? They shouldn't.Creationists don't want the "greater truth" you mentioned, unless it is their "greater truth". That is the whole problem. I do. Lots of them. Don't kid yourself about the totalitarian nature of some of the people you have philosophically allied yourself with. Creationism is inherently anti-science. It is the act of taking belief in a given mythology and accepting it rather then the findings of science. I think that's a pretty good definition of "anti-science". Further, since the the vast majority of real progress in the history of man has been by people using the principles of science, I think "anti-science" and "anti-progress" go pretty much hand in hand. Finally, if one defines "knowledge" as "the state or act of knowing", as the American Heritage Dictionary does, and considering that science is the only way humanity has found to get real information about the world, then those who deliberately turn their backs on that information may rightly be called "anti-knowledge". So, yes, creationists are anti-science, anti- progress, and anti-knowledge. Creationists who want their views taught in the public schools in any way are also pretty much anti-The United States Constitution. This just laughable. Naturalism is part and parcel of science, one of the pillars on which it stands, and all the advances that it has provided are reliant upon it. Yet, now, when a disgruntled minority of believers in one mythology find they do not like it's findings, we are supposed to start doing science differently, in a way that suits them and their worldview.

No one, because it isn't. Naturalism in the context I was using it means the idea that science must be done on that which is observable, testable and falsfiable. That is in no way religious. Because there aren't any. Evolution is one of the best supported theorys out there. It is the best explanation available for how the world works. That is why it belongs in the science classroom. The fact that a very vocal minority doesn't like it for religous reasons is immaterial. Again, no. Science wants to know the facts about how the world works and to construct theory to explain the facts. That's all. The prevalant mythology in America has parts that disagree with the findings of science. This offends those who believe in it. Too bad. I'm sorry science bothers them, but I really don't care. The only time I care is when they try and get something other then science in the science classroom.Another good distiction is that science looks at what is and works from there. Creationists look at what they already "know" and try to support it. Creationism is thus flawed from the get-go. You should find it interesting. The alignment of the creationist movement with the religious and political right is an ominous and troubling development. Beware that bet. You may just loose it. Absolutely irrelevant. These men, and other christian scientests right up to today, keep their faith and yet do their work within the standards of science. The personal beliefs of those working in the sciences is irrelevant. Only the product is important. and, Meaningless drivel that says nothing. I am neither lost nor clueless.