[Heartlander]

“It is a fact that God is continuously being publicly discussed by very well-known scientists- just read Gould, Dawkins, Hull, Provine, Wilson, Simpson, Futyama, Sagan, Hawking, and others. From a nineteenth century perspective, books like The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins, 1986) and Wonderful Life (Gould, 1989) are simply Bridgewater treatises such as Paley, Owens, and Roget wrote, works in which up-to-date science is used for the task of world-view apologetics.”

and in textbooks…

“Douglas Futuyma's text (Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition) he writes: "By coupling the undirected, purposeless variations to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made the theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

" Purvis, Orians and Heller, (in Life: The Science of Biology, 4th edition) tell students that, "the living world is constantly evolving without any goals.. . .evolutionary change is not directed."

[Aric2000]

I will say this one more time and hope that you understand.

Science makes NO claims as to the validity or nonvalidity of god. Those scientists that do are stating personal opinions.

Those that state those personal opinions are fine, just as long as those personal opinions do not interfere with their scientific research.

Pure science CANNOT use god, for if it does it is NO longer science, but religion.

God has no place in a science classroom, for god is NOT science, god is religion/philosophy.

If you wish to teach your children creationism/ID, be my guest, but it has NO place in a public schools science curriculum. Nor in ANY science curriculum for that matter.