[tpanther]

Do you understand that if a child asks you about her teeth and you tell her that there’s just no place to discuss God in science class, that this isn’t being a very effective witness for Christ? Especially given that the child ALREADY obviously has it in her mind that there’s indeed a God?

And how is it you can call His design incompetent and expect to be taken seriously?

[allmendream]

Do you understand that if I were a government teacher and I was declaring which religious doctrines were correct and which were incorrect then that would be an abridgment of the religious freedom of my students and the establishment of religion?

It is the I.D. movement that posits that the design was so incompetently carried out that God must need fill the holes by miraculous intervention to effect meaningful biological change; then I suppose the premise that God is an incompetent put forth by I.D. means that they will never be taken seriously.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

And how is it you can call His design incompetent and expect to be taken seriously?

Well there is no need to wonder at that--it's precisely what an atheist would say. The theory of evolution denies that there is any intelligent plan, intent, purpose or guidance in nature. That's the point of it. So teaching evolution in schools amounts to state-sanctioned atheism. Aside from being the cornerstone of atheism, the denial of design in nature is contrary to common sense. But I guess we need to keep teaching it to kids, to make sure we grinding out good atheists.