ergo...
"The State and Science for that matter are agnostic, neither has to be atheistic. In the case of the State that point of view is there to protect your religious freedom. In the case of science that view is there to insure impartiality."
To be agnostic is to say that "I do not know" if God exists or not. When God and the supernatural are automatically excluded from science as an impossibility, that is not agnosticism, that is atheism, and most certainly not impartiality.
"The Christian community in this country wants to distort those principles simply because they have a religious agenda. Many of the early Humanists were very much religious people, Erasmus, Thomas More, who saw quite clearly the problems inherent in State religions"
I would very much dispute that humanists are "religious people" and the agenda of today's secular humanist (yes, secular humanists have their own agenda) is very much anti-God and anti-religion. Why you cannot see that is beyond me. Secular humanism is a religion, one that is man centered rather than God centered. I have no problem with the concept that all citizens are free to accept or reject religion -- God Himself has given us that free choice. I do not want schools to teach religious dogma or doctrine, but in the same manner I do not want the schools to teach in their science classes that God and the supernatural are dismissed as impossibilities.
"The burden of proof is on the creationists. All you need do is prove scientifically the existence of your God. Failing to do that you have no place within the methodology of modern science. Deduction is a provable method, induction is not."
Your argument is fallacious from a logical standpoint. I suggest that science prove that God does not exist. If neither side can be proven, then the answer is unknowable, yet "science" accepts one side over the other. I also suggest that science "prove" evolution -- it cannot. Can science give an answer to the origen of life?? It cannot. Yet science teaches evolution as fact.
mlsoft