Well, yes they're absurd (didn't they refuse to help defend ID in the Dover trial?) but in that particular sentence they have the teensy-weensiest of claims. There are religious people who think evolution can be reconciled with religions and other religious people who disagree. That statement is siding with the former against the latter and so might conceivably put a toe across the SC's neutrality standard.
Better to stick with facts that don't claim truth for one position or another. They might, for example, quote some of the many scientists like Francis Collins who've reconciled evolution with their faith. And then they could quote creationists who say these celebrated scientists just lying to themselves because the Bible must be taken literally.
>>Well, yes they’re absurd (didn’t they refuse to help defend ID in the Dover trial?) but in that particular sentence they have the teensy-weensiest of claims. There are religious people who think evolution can be reconciled with religions and other religious people who disagree. That statement is siding with the former against the latter and so might conceivably put a toe across the SC’s neutrality standard.<<
You have a point - there is a point here.
I’ve been a science teacher and I can tell you that kids are gonna ask questions and teachers need the freedom to answer questions that are not directly in the curriculum.
I promise that kids are gonna ask about religion in science class. I do disagree with the DI - teacher need to be able to say they do not oppose religion and that science does not oppose religion (although it is sometimes hard to tell that listening to some science types)
There are some religions that are OK with violence under certain conditions, and others that reject it totally. Ergo, fighting wars or even having a military is unconsitutional.
Since this line of argument leads to obvious absurdities, it must be rejected as invalid.