You pretty strongly stated that you think the idea that they can't coexist is idiotic. I suspect that what you really meant to say is that it's idiotic to think that they shouldn't coexist, or that it's idiotic to think that there are very good reasons for them not coexisting. I challenged your point, by claiming…

I was hoping that you would actually respond to my question. Did you not see it?

The part where they do a cutaway with the hand is really cool. I've never seen anything like that before.

The scene is pretty far away, so it might not have been noticeable.

What plate?

Sorry to have to put a wet blanket over everyone by intruding, but there isn't really a question of whether or not they can coexist. They obviously can, because there are successful scientists who also profess religious beliefs (see: Francis Collins). A far more interesting question is should they coexist. Their…

Here are your two magic words: cdesign proponentsists

For a person of faith, then learning something new in a science class shouldn't shake that faith, but hopefully add to it.

It worked for me. I stopped and thought "what are these people so angry and upset about? *Click* *click* - oh. Hey hang on a second here, I think these guys might be on to something…"

smug, elitist jagoffs

A refutation should actually address that which my argument is based on. You're doing the effective equivalent of just saying "nuh-uh!"

Main Argument: Using false examples of gene expression is harmful.

I just don't give a fuck

It's a good shorthand for students, and should be treated as such.

…and claiming them to be non-fiction isn't?

I implied no such thing. You claimed that there was a utility gain in using wrong examples of gene influence. I argued that there is not in fact any utility gain, and that presenting the sort of misinformation you were defending can actually have a detrimental effect, to the tune of focusing solely on lesson 1 and…

The same logic could be used to argue that they shouldn't be taking the biology class in the first place.

It's very conceptually important to understand that not everything is genetic. Your recommendation to continue to act like things that aren't genetic are is contradictory to this point.

And what on earth qualifies a physicist or a chemist to have a noteworthy opinion on the matter (a biochemist, maybe, but otherwise)?

"Cannot unsee."