A lot of problems were also caused because of malnutrition yet that is never really thought about.

The WHO also lists diet as a bigger risk to well being yet very little is being done about it. http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/en/ People would much rather waste trillions on medical costs than fight the problem where it starts.

"Zero detectable health costs"? Look at http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html. So far 2.5 billion has been paid out in court for vaccine related injuries. If you actually think about it for every case brought to court there is probably 100 or maybe a 1000 times more that doctors explain away. Vaccines are not nearly as clean cut as you think.

So you are saying all or none? Which is quite an unconvincing argument and then you tell me to pipe down? I think vaccines help quite a bit, but diet helps quite a bit more. Anyways, In 1975 Japan eliminated all vaccines for children under two and that when that happened; their infant mortality rate plummeted so that it was the lowest in the world.

I am not anti-vaccine by any means. I am just anti all vaccines for a newborn baby. Why pump a human, at its most critical stage, with a bunch of foreign chemicals? Does a newborn really need to be vaccinated against STD's? Why not wait until the child is more robust?

Actually I don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old and I don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I am just saying if there is something else that is plausible then why not at least discuss it. Does that not broaden the persons horizons? Single mindedness is bad for religious zealots as well as scientific ones.

Chicago Public School, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/580789/posts
MA Public School, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-I9Qp3d4Y
San Diego Public School, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0712/p01s03-ussc.html

General, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm

I wholly agree. I think science and religion are two ways of looking at the same thing.

Why don't we focus on the flaws in science as well? Mainly that hugely complex organisms like humans were created from totally random chaotic interactions which favor chaos instead of order. Thus it is far more likely to not have an organism "evolve" than for it to evolve. People act like science is perfect, but one new fact could totally change everything scientifically. Does that sound like a good position to be in?

I would agree with you except that Islam is taught in many school districts in the US. Even going so far as having morning prayers. How can that be allowed in school and very few object, but having morning Christian prayers is not allowed.

That was a very good analogy, but isn't that the same thing you are doing? You are very upset about one argument and want to silence it, but they can not silence you. Double Standard.

You sound quite confused. To use your example, I do think that if a plausible alternative to gravity was found then we should at least mention it in school. Why not? Does it harm anyone?

The whole idea is the same as that for Global Warming. One argument is allowed, but the opposite is not. I lose all respect for "scientists" when they claim that the debate is over and everything is settled. Science doesn't establish truth. It simply establishes what is observable. There is a huge difference between the two. In any case, debate between two ideas is quite healthy.

Why is it that teaching against religion is protected speech, but if the teacher were to favor religion then that is not protected?

Exactly. I have worked in large IT groups where every upgrade like this comes with a huge amount of pain. We have to coordinate with all the vendors and make sure every upgrade goes smooth. We also have to test each app through formal processes. This all takes time and there is always that one app which fails and is critical. I always hated the "maintenance day" because there were problems galore.