But, "ANY"religion has no business stifling the communication of "theories", in the public sector, in favor of that religion's myths, no business at all. THAT'S where I get riled up. Whether evolution is exactly correct, or just mostly correct... it's a heck of a lot more correct than religion's (any religion) Creation Myths.
I'm ok with that with my edits
You get incensed over a religion being foisted on you, yet are perfectly fine with your religion of secular humanistic religion of self-worship being rammed down our throats and all that being foisted on my kids under the guise of poor excuse for a public education system I pay to support. It's at that point that we speak up and then you and your folks have a fit manifesting the most hypocritical arguments in existence about Christians pushing their religion on you.
I suspect it's because the thought that there is a God just might rattle your inner being and the manifestation is seen in the form of vitriol toward anything that may upset the need for self-aggrandizement
But again, this notion that belief in evolution (or in this case "secular humanism") equates to a religion is just nonsense. It's an attempt to completely change the terms of the debate by destroying any destinction between religious and non-religious behaviors.
School is a place for teaching facts, or at least our best current understanding of them. Some things- nutrition comes to mind- have changed dramatically, and what was taught as fact a few decades ago turned out to be wrong. The neat thing about science, as opposed to religion, is that the scientific process can admit it is wrong and move forward. Religion, being based on dogma, cannot, generally speaking.
Another problem with the inclusion of creation myths as fact in school curricula is which myths to teach! Shall it be decided by majority? By which religion is willing to be most violent about it? Proportionally? By committee? Shall we sacrifice goats and use their entrails to decide? Etc.
But returning to the notion that secular humanism is a religion. I'm no religiosity expert, Lord knows, but working off the top of my head here it seems that religions require a God or Gods, an entity to whom one pledges their soul, an entity that is seen as powerful beyond compare, wise beyond comprehension, and so on.
The notion that "science" (or Darwin!) is viewed as such an entity is absurd. Science seeks to understand things that are powerful beyond compare; science seeks to codify the sum of human wisdom. It does not embody those things.
In summary: calling evolution or secular humanism a religion is a weak play, intended to give the faithful a fallback position to retreat to when, in my opinion, they have lost the debate.
