[jwalsh07]

We are not discussing Darwinian mechanisms, we are discussing the constitutionality of state actors making declarative assertions vis a vis religion.

I understand your reticence though to answer the converse because it makes it obvious that SCOTUS establishment clause jurisprudence makes it painfully clear that state actors can not make such statements to students compelled to be in class.

[supercat]

We are not discussing Darwinian mechanisms, we are discussing the constitutionality of state actors making declarative assertions vis a vis religion.

It has long been established that it is perfectly proper for agents of the state to make statements about religion. For example, a statement like "Most Jews believe that nobody resembling the Jesus Christ of the New Testament was born in ancient Rome," is simple and factual, and would be entirely appropriate in discussing the difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I would consider a statement that evolution is not anti-religious is a statement about religion, rather than a religious statement; a claim that it is anti-religious would likewise also be a statement about religion rather than a religious statement, but would need some real evidence before I'd accept its veracity.