There are other arguably more effective strafes to add to you campaign against institutional American education. Your argument that Kansas public schools provide a place to refine creationist ideology, to which such an ideology is relevant and only relevant to such a place, is much to overdone. Rather, you might note that the growth of such a course creates a guaranteed market for textbooks, which bring a resounding lucrative royalty income to career "pseudoscientists." Or, you can on reasonably defensible grounds, argue that an emphasis on creationism while toeing the "academic line" is, if anything, more suitable in the realm of the individual, than it is in the realm of the mind.
These, among others, are arguments you can legitimately make. Nevertheless, you cannot, on any defensible ground, argue that creationism is an illegitimate means through which one can achieve personal fulfillment, or that having faith is somehow less legitimate than having all the answers. And yet, your defense of natural law continues to maintain that one reality negates another, and so forth and so on. Eventually, every reality is run afoul of this compulsory moralizing, including you own, until all belief systems are seen no longer as subjective, but as one "wrong" system that precedes another.
This philosophical rhetoric may seem overkill, but it is meant, above all, to win arguments -- or rather, head them off at the pass; hence, my aim is to debunk what seems to be a very persistent bee in your bonnet. Yes, mathematics may be the underpinning of the universe; yes, perhaps the hard-edged world we experience does indeed arise from the indeterminacy of the quantum haze. And this my be a convenient argument for cold, impersonal scientists like yourself, but is does not represent a complete understanding of how the human mind works. And at the very least, it doesn’t provide the needed common ground that bridges barriers.
B. L. Nelson