You're a good dad! Way to go!

Adam and James may or may not be scientists, but I think there are "scientists" that are on the production team for the show. I'm a PhD chemist in the field of medicinal chemistry, and we've had TV documentary crews come in and film something about our work before. When they do the filming, they just merely ask us to pipet some random liquid into another container for no reason other than to provide some "science" looking video footage. So in effect, even though we are "real" scientists, when we're on TV, we're just actors, but there's science behind the info being disseminated. I tend to think of the mythbusters in a similar way.
I understand that even their methods are not up to the standards of science publication, but even we do try out things in the beginning in a way not too dissimilar to the Mythbuster way (ie not statistically significant, using some mock-up equipment, or whatever) before we fully commit to an experiment or before we purchase the proper equipment that would cost $50,000 or something. So yeah, the Mythbuster show is pretty scientific.

The question I have is:
Would there be any significant difference between wearing the phone on the hip via a holster thingy and having the phone in your pocket?

@knarfling, very well written. Good post!
I'll just add a few things here to your comments
1) Job 38 (and to some extent 37) briefly mentions how climate works (but not extensively as the intention here wasn't to teach Job how rain gets formed)
2) In the OT, the Lord had already talked about loving your neighbors
Leviticus 19:18 & 34

I have ~ a dozen "friends" who are "First day of middle school.... I'm so nervous!!!"
But they never caught it. So it might have to very specific like
"Happy 12th birthday!"
Come to think of it, I think I've posted Bday wishes like that before...

I can assure you that those samples were intact all these years. Besides, most of the samples were in vials and not in flasks. How do I know this personally? I did my PhD work in a lab right next to Jeffrey Bada's (see the paper, he's one of the main authors). I was there when he found these samples from their storage or something and told us all about it.
Also any amino acids that were in the vials must have been synthesized in the Miller's apparatus since there was no starting materials left in those vials (remember the S.M. were gases). Even so this experiment is still irrelevant to the origin of life for the reasons I've discussed in another comment of mine (see below).

One of the major reasons has to do with safety. The Miller experiment was done in a closed system of glassware that was under pressure from heat and sparks (albeit having a condenser). I got my PhD in a lab next door to Jeffrey Bada's lab (one of the authors and a former student of Miller's). So I used to use Prof. Bada's lab for their NH3 tank for Birch reduction, etc (our lab was not equipped with a liquid NH3 tank for EHS reasons), and I remember thinking there's no way I'd want to be close to this glassware if the Miller experiment was repeated especially given the presence of H2, etc. When you look at the video footage of Miller with the glassware, you'll notice he wasn't even wearing safety goggles. Chemists used to have a completely different mentality back then. For instance, some of my mentors used to smoke cigarettes right next to a squirt bottle of diethyl ether "back in the days". Today, it's unthinkable!!!
Regardless, this experiment is still irrelevant because those gases Miller used (H2S, H2, NH3, CO2, esp.) cannot coexist in the same place for any appreciable amount of time. Gases like CO2 would not exist without a significant amt of O2, but H2S, H2, NH3, etc (and the amino acid products) would be quickly oxidized at elevated temp in the presence of O2. Moreover, if O2 was absent, unfiltered UV radiation (w/out O2, no O3 layer) would also quickly destroy those reducing gases and amino acid products.

You're right, the air captured in amber fossils has provided evidence that O2 content used to be 50% more than it is now, but it still doesn't account for the fact that large reptiles (pterodactyls, etc) were able to fly.
The thing about Biblical creationism is that it doesn't make sense if you only take one aspect of it at time. For example, if you only look at the Genesis 1-3 creation account, the world described then is nowhere close to the world we live in now. However, if you combine it with the global flood account, everything fits together; eg fossil record, geologic layers, geologic features like grand canyon, etc. This is also true for the canopy theory. If it is true and if the global flood happened the way the Bible describes it (the water for the flood came from below the crust of the earth), the canopy would have been destroyed at the time of the flood. The canopy material (extremely cold ice) could have frozen some animals instantaneously and ushered in a short ice age, for which we see evidence today. So the only Biblical creationism makes sense is if you take all of it into account.

It always has been the government that defines what scientific research could be done anyways. In my field (pharmaceutical sciences), most of the funding comes from NIH, whose funding is determined by the Congress. In other fields of science, the major sources of grants are either NSF (and NIH for some chemistry stuff) or state agencies. At least in academia, money from the private sectors is limited even in pharmaceutical sciences.

So refreshing to see some non-bigoted and rational post about creationism on /.
Based on the so-called "separation of church and state" principle (not an article) in the constitution, this bill should be supported just like you said. I, for one, am a professional scientist with a PhD in organic chemistry working at a state university (in the area of pharmaceutical sciences) and am also a pastor and a young-earth creationist. Although I used to be an atheist in college, nothing other than scientific evidence led me to believe in the validity of the Bible.