LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by "science as a religion," but I do not
see anything I wrote that could reasonably be construed as addressing
that issue.

John Travolta or Ron Hubbard can best explain the meaning of this
religion.

Let me if I understand this.

When I criticized the teaching of creationism as science, you thought I
was criticizing "science as a religion" which you understand to be
Scientology.

So you responded to what you thought was a criticism of Scientology by
quoting Newton and Einstein to the effect that religion and science can
and should co-exist.

Are you trying to say that you believe that religion and science can
and should co-exist as they do in Scientology?




As for the Kansans who advocate teaching creationism as science, I
think they are foolish.

I think that Kansas is the only state that does that now. I know that
earlier, Tennessee and Arkansas have gone to the Supreme Court to
challeng the "Establishment Clause" and that teaching evolution was in
violation of the "First Amendment".

In 2000, a People for the American Way poll among Americans found that:

29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but
can discuss creationism there as a belief;
20% believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class and
religious theories elsewhere;
16% believe public schools should teach creation only;
13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism
in science class;
4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how.
1% had no opinion