That’s about the same time that someone also shows up calling somebody else a science-hater.
”So I think you have nailed the state of things when religion gets into a public discussion.”
I’ve nailed the state of things in circumstances where scientists propose, under the color of a “science discussion,” to come to conclusions about public policy, or religion, or philosophy generally, and seek to disqualify any opposition by declaring it excluded from the “public” discussion by reason of its “non-science” status.
The difference is that people interested in science do not have a forum where discussion can be limited to scientific issues, whereas people interested in religion can exclude skepticism from their threads.
I have asked about four times in the last couple of days exactly what religion has to contribute in a science classroom. Exactly what would be taught if a state had a law like Louisiana's that permits teaching of alternatives.
I'm still waiting for an answer.