Your very premise is faulty. The word "viewpoint" is just another word for opinion. Science isn't about opinions. It is about evidence, experiments, and a rigorous commitment to setting presumptions aside.

The areas where scientists tend to disagree are those where there is not yet sufficient evident to establish a widely accepted, verifiable conclusion. Evolution is not one of them.

The evidence for Evolution is vast and well defined. If you want to falsify Evolution, you need more than a dissenting viewpoint. You need to provide some clear, repeatable, and scientifically testable evidence.

We still call gravity a "Theory" as well. You are making the common mistake about the scientific use of the word.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences: Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.

The standard Christian Nationalist argument is that the Founding Fathers were Christians and thus they must have used Christian principals in creating the government and thus it is imperative that we return the US to its Christian roots by adopting Christian principals in current laws (and that their God has a special Christian plan for America and that non-Christians are not really citizens).

While undoubtedly some of the Founding Fathers were Christians, the validity of the above stops there. The writings of the Founding Fathers make it clear to anyone who bothers to read them: They did not want any religious influence to inform government policy. They specifically warned against the dangers of such.

It is worth noting that prior to the formation of the USA, many of the colonies had official religions. While the new Federal government did not prohibit this until 1868, all states had disetablished religion long before that. The last being Massachusetts in 1833.

Actually, these are well documented as Masonic principals, which is not surprising as many of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons.

The common Christian mistake is to assume that any mention of a God or Creator means the Christian God. It can just as easily be attributed the Deist beliefs, which were common at the time (and widely held by Freemasons).

In short, everything about the Christian Nationalist movement flies in the face of the goals and principals of the Founding Fathers of the USA. To suggest otherwise is to deny history.

Of course, don't take my word for any of this, do some historical research of your own.

Actually, you have just given a definition of irony. To be sarcasm, it must also be insulting, taunting, or express contempt for the subject.

You seem to be missing the point, perhaps willfully. The point is not whether or not the Founders believed in the Christian God, fairies, witches, unicorns, or any magical thinking.

The point here is whether or not the Founders intended for Christianity to be the basis of the government. From their writings, they clearly wanted a government based on reason, not religion.

That's a straw man argument.

This issue is not whether or not some or all of the Founding Fathers were Christians. The issue is the claim that the United States was founded according to Christian biblical precepts and thus its laws should reflect these beliefs. This claim is an outright history denying lie perpetrated by Christian Nationalists. This lie is easily revealed by reading what our Founding Fathers had to say about religion and government.

Some examples:

Benjamin Franklin: "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

John Adams: "It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

James Maddison: "Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves."

Do some research and you'll find more of the same. Thomas Jefferson had a lot to say about the subject as well.

Here is another way to look back. In 1797 the Treaty of Tripoli was signed and unanimously ratified by the Senate. It contains the words "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." and you would think that a "Christian Nation" would be upset by this clear statement. The complete text of this treaty and the news of its signing was published in several newspapers of the day and yet there is no evidence of any public outcry or backlash.

This nonsense about America being a Christian nation is revisionist history perpetrated by Christian Nationalists in an attempt to subvert the constitution and the clearly articulated intentions of the Founders of the United States. Of course, don't take my word for it, do some research of your own.

Actually, you've got that backwards. Claiming to cure whatever ails you by adjustment is exactly what Chiropractic is all about.

That some practitioners also practice physical therapy (with good results) lends undue credence to an otherwise completely bogus profession.

It is a hoax.

Need proof? Try to actually place an order.

This is apparently what keeps church attendance up.

Curiously enough, in countries where there is no fear of becoming destitute because of socialized medicine, food, housing, and even college education, what little popular interest there is in attending church is on the steady decline.

That's irrelevant as to the question of whether or not open source can be profitable. I'll bet there are far more failed closed source software companies than failed open source software companies, and that is also irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

Just admit you don't know what you are talking about and move on...

How about Google? They run more open source than just about anyone on all their servers and Chrome, Android, and Chrome OS are all Open Source.

How about Yahoo? They reported $153 million in profit back in January according to the WSJ. They runs tons of open source and give away open source tools like YUI.

Amazon is built on, and contributes back to open source.

You want more? How about SugarCRM, Zimbra, Acquia, SnapLogic, and Untangle?

The point is, the open source business model is different than just selling software, but it is plenty profitable when you do it right.

So we should ban E-Cigs, but not the "more" bad regular kind?

I'm curious how you can to that conclusion. I just read the study you referenced and that is not at all what it says.

What is actually says (emphasis mine):

Nowhere in that study do the authors claim that there is no such thing as the placebo effect.