Evolutiuon clearly compels a particular religious perspective. i.e., all those religious perspectives that contradict evolution must be wrong.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that you can’t believe in god(s). The beauty of the God Hypothesis is that it is infinitely malleable.

But Gary, as a point of science, the Bible clearly *is* wrong:

1) When it strongly implies that the earth is only ~6000 years old,

2) When it claims that an Ark can be built to house all the animals of the world,

3) When it claims that 40 days and 40 nights of rain ~4000 years ago killed all of the animals and all of the humans on earth (sparing only those in that can kill all the animals on earth.

And a host of other stuff.

That’s why Bible stuff isn’t taught in science classes.

Mark

It is felt that two concepts are linked completely… both that “creation” must be “distant” (billions of years ago, such and so”, but also, because it is distant, then God cannot by any stretch of the imagination be close, personal, or caring about humans or their actions.

That is a direct assault at aspects of all religions that go far beyond narrow questions of the timing of creation. When that point of view finds its way into education, it becomes something equally as odious as the forced teaching of ID. It becomes the state declaring, through education, that “religion is wrong.”

And, it does happen. Period. I was taught in biology class in Jr. High that “there is no god.” It was not in the formal curriculum, but it was taught. You can blame the individual teacher if you wish, but that doesn’t solve the problem, or answer the question. Just how many teachers have been so brazen as to say that? 10%? 20%?

If the state is forbidden from formally endorsing religion, it is likewise forbidden from formally rejecting religion, or the teachings thereof. That point puts science education into a rather sticky spot, walking that tight rope, but until and unless people recognize that the formal rejection of religion in the classroom is as odious as the formal endorsement, this debate will not leave.

If “religion is a way of…explaining the origins of humans and the universe…” then the “*vast* majority” would believe that Genesis is literally true.

I doubt even 1 in 30 Christians believes that Genesis is literally true.

I agree that it’s wrong to pretend that evolution (not to mention geology/archeology and astronomy/cosmology) doesn’t clearly conflict with the 6000-year-old-earth and Noah’s Ark view of history. But since I think hardly anyone believes the 6000-year-old-earth view of history, I don’t think there’s a conflict between evolution and the “vast majority” of peoples’ religious views.

But that describes about 1% of the religious population. For the *vast* majority, religion is a way of discerning right from wrong, explaining the origin of humans and the universe, situating groups of humans in relation to each other, providing daily consolation and comfort, etc. etc. For the vast majority, religion includes, implicitly or explicitly, substantive truth claims about the material world. Science in general, and evolution in particular, calls those claims into question.

Thus, while science in general and evolution in particular do not *compel* the absence of that kind of religion, they certainly work to corrode it. Pretending otherwise — pretending that, for most people, religion is purely metaphorical or about how Everything is One — serves no purpose that I can see.

The grand Enlightenment story about science breaking the pernicious hold of religion on the mind of humanity: It’s out of fashion, but IMO, still accurate.

http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=2041

Like the auto parts industry, ID is a product largely created by an “institute” supplying the right wing with talking points, and has the overall rightwing goal of controlling people with religion.

The inanity of the whole thing is pretty well summed up in the observation that real scientists don’t try to get their theories adopted by teaching them in high school classrooms.

In some ways it’s reminiscent of the long struggle to restore the Bourbons, a struggle that ironically eventually led to the second and third empires of Napolean.

Progress! Ain’t it grand!

Nor is it correct to say there is no religion in the curriculum. I read many religious texts in literature class and I learned a lot about religion in history class. What those classes did, however, was teach them as literature and history, rather than endorsing them. Where I think you have a point is when people get in a huff over a plaque on a 100 year old State House that mentions God.

The problem is that the Evangelism is in opposition to a secular education because Evangelism insists on evangelizing. It is your duty to take any opportunity to play witness. Letting everyone read the book they want hampers an opportunity to bring one to God, and therefore, their ability to practice their religion.

I know many preachers, priests and theology students, and all of them recognize evolution, and do not object to its teaching. The problem is largely with the “non-denominational” churches that take a very literal view of the Bible. I agree that it behooves science steer clear of stating anything but what the data says, but if believe Genesis is free of metaphor, I think you’ll still feel threatened by it.

D