God and Darwin are not necessarily in conflict. And if you'd like to be bored out of your Gourd, I'd be quite willing to explain how this can be...
Which accounts for a significant amount of the zealotry on the part of evangelical athiesm.
Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
Don't allow Atheism to become the state religion (and it is a faith, it asserts that there absolutely is no god).
I don't see where it is the responsibility of evolutionists to appease religion by 'proving' compatibility on anything other than an individual level for their own personal beliefs.
Whether you or anyone else feels the two are compatible or not doesn't affect the evidence evolution is based upon. It merely affects how each person chooses to treat that evidence.
This is a lie. Lying about what someone has said is a sign of dishonesty and is a sure sign that you have a losing argument.
The judge's opinion doesn't say that disparaging Darwin's theory is unconstitutional. It says that teaching religion in science class is unconstitutional. If you can come up with a scientific theory (i.e., an idea that is in conformance with all known observations and from which testable hypotheses can be developed) that opposes evolutionary theory, then this ruling doesn't affect it at all and you could teach it in Science class. But if you try to advance an allegation as science that is in fact philosophical in nature, with no scientific underpinning, then that's not legal.
I realize that calling someone a liar is a serious charge. Show me where the judge said in his opinion that presenting an alternative scientific theory to evolutionary theory was illegal. What he said was that teaching of one particular set of allegations (Intelligent Design) as science when they were not science was illegal, but he made no blanket statement such as you have made. If you disagree, quote from his decision to support your claim.
bttt