Richard Dawkins - Applying Darwinian Evolution to Physics

Think for a moment Teach, if people just did good for the sake of being altruistic?
Some people may hide behind the banner of religion to do good deeds, but we are a social species. Doing good things for others gets us in good social standing.
But, you don't need a religion to do good things.
However it seems, you do need one as an excuse to do terrible things.

After all, the Nazi's didn't have the motto "Gott Mit Uns"
(God With Us) written on their belt buckles for Nothing don't cha know.

Religion is concidered by the lay person to be true, the wise to be false and by those in power: Useful.
That seems to be religions only redeeming factor, and even then it is a piss poor one at best.
It pushes the "Us vs Them" mentality. It makes it so that in order to do something, people are pushed by either fear or false promise of reward.
The list of things that have been done in the name of a god, though mostly political are still "done in the name of a god".

What isn't?
Religion has been through out the ages a way to silence the questions of "What's it all about?" in human history.
When humanity was young little things confused and baffled us, how does fire work? We concluded that it was divine or had a god behind it. The same with water, or nature or anything else.
These little stories lead to beliefs about things.
Beliefs that lead to human sacrifice, mutilation, murder and many other horrible things.

So we stick with the best explanation that unbiased peer reviewed, tested, retested evidence has to offer in the realm of Science.
Evolution by Natural Selection.
And it is the one that not only Works, but is supported by the Evidence. Evidence like Fossils. Embryological Evidence, comparative morphology, and most potent of all: DNA.
*ID isn't really a theory. It barely stands as a hypothesis. And it has been ruled as Creationism.

How is this? Creation says that a god created everything spontaneously. ID says an intelligent force created everything spontaneously. See the Difference?
One is more vague than the other. But they are in fact the same thing.
When we keep these sorts of things out of a SCIENCE classroom, we are not just protecting everyone elses' beliefs, we are also protecting yours. How would you like to learn about how the Hindus view creation?

Problem with wanting an "alternative thought in addition to evolution" is that who's alternative thought are you wanting to teach? Hindu? Aztec? Buddhist? Islamic? Norse? Egyptian?
Keeping religion, and I am guessing that ID explanation* is what you are talking about here, is in fact religion. It not only has been proven in a Court Of Law, by a republican judge, appointed by Bush Jr. But even the mere postulate it makes is Creation, which has been ruled Religion.

This is laughable. "Doesn't hate women?", "Not many gays are religious?" And then you have to go and insult the founding fathers, the founding fathers if anything were Deists. keep your church out of the government types. And with good reason, Nobody wants to live in a Theocracy. That's what American settlers were trying to get away from in the first place.
And you do realize we have found ways of turning Normal cells into Stem Cells? Normal Adult Skin Cells.

If a swim suit model challenged Hawking to a debate about quantum physics without knowing anything about it, what Point would here be?
This is the same reason Dawkins won't debate Creationists, or christian apologists. Cause when it comes down to it, you guys have the same arguments that have been refuted again and again and again.
And you don't have to know too much about religion to talk about it, after all people will tell you what they believe. Rarely do they tell you Why they believe it.