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.
That's where we disagree Jeff. It is not a weak play.
Your unwillingness to concede that I'm allowed a belief that your version of science is a theory is the wholesale mentality as to how gov'ts gain control over the people. Look all through history, including the Church history where the authorities promulgate nothing that will permit thinking outside the system and, in fact, keep the people oppressed through ignorance by asserting a religion. In this case the religion is secular humanism...man is his own god.
If you want to treat secular humanism as FACT and teach it in school as such, then you are indeed practicing fascism, pure and simple, foisting your beliefs on unsuspecting children and forcing them to believe something in a manner that is by all accounts, extortion. If the students refuse to regurgitate the beliefs of the system, they are failed.
You want to call it a weak play because it's a strong play and the correct play.
School, public school, in a secular country, teaches the facts as we best understand them.
I have zero problem with teaching the various Creation Myths to kids in the schools- in a religious class, and with no preference given to the myths. Teach them all. They are all equally absurd, but, in that they are an interesting window into how the primitive mind saw the world, they are quite interesting and thought-provoking.
But they are absurd. A list of the various creation myths would demonstrate the utter fultility and blatant intellectual dishonesty in trying to teach ANY of them as "fact".
On the other hand, there's an overwhelming body of evidence that shows that every single one of those creation myths does not jibe with the geological and anthropological record. So, even though science can, will, and does make mistakes, it still provides us with the most cogent and well-vetted mechanism for interpreting the physical world around us.
Last edited by Jeff_O; 03/16/12. Reason: damned auto-correct...
