re: #299 Salamantis

AGW is empirically testable, and the reason that researchers are abandoning it is because it is failing these tests. Religious dogmas are supernatural, not natural, and metaphysical, not physical, which means they cannot be empirically tests, and thus are not science. And, as I have said before, trying to use AGW to attack evolutionary theory is like trying to use Ron Paul to attack Abraham Lincoln. AGW may be bad science, but it is at least science - which is why it is correctable. Evolutionary theory, otoh, is exemplary science, and creationism/ID isn’t empirical science at all, but religious dogma.

Thank you! That is the well summarized construct of the situation I was looking for. They have to provide the substantial supporting scientific evidence required to teach the content, and religious books (from any religion) are not evidence. They may end up blocking evolution being taught, but it is unlikely in the extreme that they can justify teaching creationism or even ID.