Calybos

Annoyance isn't the issue--it never has been. Constitutionality is the issue; is the government, or its resources, being co-opted to give preferential treatment to one religion over others? If so, that's against the law, period. Whether anyone's "offended" is irrelevant.

Yeah, all he did was break the law instead of doing his job! And he did it "for Jesus," so that makes it okay! What's WRONG with you people, expecting schoolteachers to teach instead of preach? Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my Trigonometry class... we're gonna talk about Noah's Ark some more, and how the Jews are trying to take over the world!

That's a false assumption; the two have nothing to do with each other, and there are plenty of devout people (of ALL faiths) who accept the validity of evolution. Likewise, acceptance of evolution does not require rejection of religious faith; evolution says nothing about supernatural or spiritual matters at all, one way or the other. True, evolution is 100% materialist/naturalist in its methods and descriptions. So is all science. It's no more inherently "hostile" to religion than geometry or chemistry is. The major concern from the religious side seems to be that "the web of life" was always a primary example of how there MUST be a deity behind our existence, and evolution has disproven that assumption. Genuine faith doesn't need such a crutch, of course, but apparently a lot of people are insecure enough in their beliefs that they want human origins to be mysterious and imply a supernatural creator. They're missing out on the fact that there is no such requirement in nature. A god can (and possibly does) exist no matter what we discover about how the physical universe operates. Science is no threat to religion as long as religion doesn't insist that it IS science itself.