I appreciate that you straightened out the facts, paddymac, and I like your take on it. I also very much appreciate Susan's take on it--issues of faith are unwisely discussed without the physical evidence of a life lived/changed by that faith--the 'net isn't a good vehicle for that--hypocracy is almost invited by the anonymity. I would, however request that you think about the characterization of only one of the sides as being "intolerant". I think you might agree that the preponderance of people these days who consider themselves to be knowledgable believe creationism to be intolerable. The "separation of church and state" that we have was instated to protect religion from persecution by a "state religion" as well as to keep the government from being corrupted by a religious oligarcy. To, as a matter of course, be instructing in public schools (paid for and attended by religious and non-religious citizens) that creationism is false is intolerant and is a use of state monies and facilities to persecute religious beliefs. It's not an easy question. Should the state be allowed to tell a religion that is law-abiding, that it's theology is objectively wrong?