[Luis Gonzalez]

"You are the one who is afraid even to have your children exposed to the idea that organized matter might be the result of intelligent design."

No.

You are fine with a qualified science teacher teaching a scientific theory to students. So am I.

The difference is that I am the one who refuses to:

• Have a State agency set a curriculum for teaching religion in public schools
• Have the NEA get access to my child's religious upbringing
• Have a teacher of unknown political and religious ideology discuss God's Creation with children of multiple religious beliefs in a classroom setting.

Why on Earth would people who call public school systems everything from governmental child abuse to socialist indoctrination camps believe that handing over part of our children's religious upbringing to that system be a good thing?

How can you possibly believe that ONE side of the argument having control of all of one side of the discussion, and part of the other side, equate to a fair presentation of both sides of the argument?

Balance is obtained by not allowing one side to control both sides of the debate.

How can you all be so damned short-sighted?

"Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan

[Fester Chugabrew]

Have a State agency set a curriculum for teaching religion in public schools . . .

I fail to see how the mere mention that organized matter might best be understood as a product of intelligent design must be equated with establishing a relgious cirriculum in public schools. What I do see, however, is a knee jerk response to what has already been a well-established means of conducting science in the first place, namely under the assumption that the universe is intelligently designed, and will therefore demonstrate intelligible processes.