[Fester Chugabrew]

You must have skipped over the part where I said it would not be necessary to bring God into every scientific statement, much as the director of a play does not need to assert himself in the play just to assure everyone he has a role. As it is, a good many science textbooks make positive statements without qualification. This does a disservice to science. The assumptions with which one undertakes science will necessarily color the interpretation and explanation of evidence. Not all taxpayers are atheists. Apparently a good many of them are tired of footing the bill for strictly atheistic science classes.

[blowfish]

Fester, the problem (which you gloss over) is that you *have* to introduce god at some specific point in a scientific discussion if he is to be at all relevant. You can't just say "god might have played a role somewhere" and leave it at that. If god plays a part in chemistry, at what point does he push electrons around? If god plays a role in geology, at what point does he alter the metamorphic process? If god plays a role in biology, at what point does he interfere with the gene sequence?

That's the way science works: concrete mechanisms and concrete evidence. If you want to blandly wave your hand and say "god might play a role", fine. But that's philosophy (or theology) and should be taught as such. Unless you can offer specific mechanisms and evidence.

That's science, Fester.