I'm afraid that your post doesn't do anything to further the discussion. I will try to help by pointing out what you should try.
And Naturalism isn't a "biased religious idea"? Just who do you think you're kidding?
The topic here is the bill. There are threads (several I think) for arguing that methodological naturalism is a "religion" you supportfor this assertion should go there.
Yet I don't hear any complaints about the falsehoods being fed to our kids to promote Naturalism/evolution. Why is that?
There are a whole big bunch of threads where you could post these "falsehoods" and show why they are false. You could, if needed, start your own thread on some of them. You have neglected to give any examples.
Uh, huh ... and materialistic Naturalists don't want any "greater truth" unless it's their "greater truth" -- that the material universe is
"All there ever was and is and ever shall be (amen)." Quote from the late Carl Sagan (my 'amen').
The individual philosophies of individuals and the concepts of methodological naturalism seem to be muddled in your mind. I suggest that you google the term within this stie and take this issue there. This is also not on topic here.
I'm willing to bet that I know far more creationists (I'm a YEC myself) and I know not a single one that says this and yet you know "lots of them". I find that particularly interesting.
This I think is directly on topic. I think you should make it even a bit clearer that you are asking for support for the assertion thatthere are creationists trying this.
You are so far out in left field you think you're playing right field.
This is hardly a useful comment. It of a type that people of both sides make. I point it out in this case because it seems very nearly the only kind of thing you have to say.
FYI, the "vast majority" of the foundations of modern science was laid down by people believing in God. To name just two, Isaac Newton and J. C. Maxwell (Maxwell's Equations). Newton's writings in Christian theology far exceed his work in math and physics combined
This is, perhaps, on topic. It is however not an answer to the statment you seem to think you are rebutting. The use of the principles of science was what you were replying too. The "evos" have made it clear many times that then and today there are believers in God who use those principles to further our knowledge. You didn't touch the real issue but just dragged a smelly red-herring across the discussion.
You're simply lost.
Without any content or value at all.
As is:
'Clueless' is the only word that comes to mind.
Where you should have pointed out exactly what you think is wrong with the statment and show another way of knowing about the natural world.
™ Version 4.2