Conservatives don't trust the Republican party. And I love your pointing out that reality doesn't care. That's perfect.
And, you know, there are a whole bunch of us religious folk who want to develop well thought out positions using the evidence that science provides.
On both sides of this specific argument, the religious as well as the liberal, it seems it's the wackos are used as strawmen to strengthen the opposing position. Science is interpreted. A scientist may have a healthy skepticism with respect to their personal interpretation. An adherent to scientism, or someone who reasons circularly from the materialist worldview that you have to start with matter and any other starting point is apriori dismissed, will dogmatically hold to their position generally without thinking through the implications and developing a logical argument. This is just as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church showing up at the funeral of a soldier.
Granted, many religious people don't think through their own positions and could not provide evidence, let alone a logical argument supporting their position on any number of fundamental matters, e.g. for Christianity take the evidence for Jesus' rising from the dead. This is no better than the adherent to scientism who claims that only science can provide answers. Why? Because that statement is not scientifically testable. It's a philosophical statement. There is no empirical method to determine if science, in fact, is the only discipline that can provide truth statements. Yet, if you can move away from the wackos I think we'd find many religious people willing to engage in rational discussion about scientific matters, and that many of them are gainfully employed in the scientific disciplines.
"Why can't religious people see this as a much, much greater feat of creation, resulting in God being infinitely more omnipotent?"
Mmmmm, because there is no evidence for a multiverse?
It's not testable. It's an idea. An idea that seems to explain away the problems of God found in our universe. The problem is that an idea does not equal truth. When faced with multiple ideas the weight of the evidence should be the basis of some rational line of thinking. And the evidence does not support a multiverse.
I also suspect religious people don't see the physical creation, or more specifically God's omnipotence, as the whole character of God. There's the omnibenevolent and omniscient aspects (etc.) as well. Just because God can do something doesn't mean he should or did or does do something. And despite his omnipotence, God cannot create a square circle. His omnipotence is bounded by logic.
I would venture to say that evidence exists to support or discredit any claim about anything. Because evidence exists does not make the claim true or not true. While this is one explanation it should be viewed with respect to other explanations with the evidence lending support to the conclusion.
The claim you make rests on an assertion that "the Genesis myths were allegory because those desert nomads didn't know how the world began." I think this one needs substantiation. Similarly, we can assert that the only true knowledge is that which science verifies. Well, that statement is not testable and becomes self-refuting. So if you say the nomads didn't know how the world began but we do now because of science, unfortunately that is not the end of the story.
Furthermore, the evidence that Paul made the whole thing up has a hard time standing up to the preponderance of evidence supporting a risen Jesus among other things. A "fatal flaw" in this case seems more akin to a line of reasoning that simply needs to be explored and weighed against other evidence.
Yes, this passage surprised me:
“We are aware of no prior case holding that a teacher violated the establishment clause by appearing critical of religion during class lectures, nor any case with sufficiently similar facts to give a teacher ‘fair warning’ that such conduct was unlawful"
I am not a judge, but I'm thinking it's their opportunity and their job to be the first ruling in a case like this. Someone has to establish precedent.
e-credibility: the non-guaranteeable likelihood that the electronic data you're seeing is genuine rather than somebody's made-up crap. - Karl Lehenbauer