Like religion, science is a representation of the truth. (Note that my word choice stands.) The claims of both science and religion are made of words; obviously Reality isn't made of words. But groups of words can be right or wrong, that is, they can be a better or worse representation of the truth. The correctability of science makes it a better representation of the truth than religion.
Religion is correctable, but the claims that one bit of writing is the inerrant word of God makes change painfully slow. My friends who have been discussing religion and slavery are proof that religion evolves.
I think the scientific process provides a valid objective foundation for pursuing truth, especially in the realms of nature and discovering realities.
What I have a hard time accepting, is science or religion when it leaves out the possibilty of being short of the truth.
I think religion is a correctable process. There are many religions, and within a religion, there are many factions. Religious fundamentalism is an anchor slowing change, which may be good and bad. Religion, like science, does not exist in a vacuum.
What I find ironic in the evolution debate is what should be taught to adolescents. Adolescents, I think, should be introduced to the concepts of science and critical thought, in a number of areas - more breadth than depth. I do admit, mathematics is one area where I would like to see more depth.
Explaining that evolution is a scientific theory (superb or otherwise) that, like other theories, is incomplete and research to fill gaps continues should not be an anathema to scientists or educators.
It should also not be a conflict to teach religious and philosophical theories that try to fill in the gaps - in school to adolescents.
How else to develop critical thinking than to present differing points of view?
The disclaimer under consideration says the theory of evolution "still leaves many unanswered questions about the origin of life.
"Study hard and keep an open mind," it says. "Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."
Backers say the addition would be inserted in the front of biology textbooks used by students in grades 9-12, possibly next fall.
The argument between Christian and evolutionists is not about religion. Essentially there can be no arguments about faith. The argument is whether the 'world model' of Christianity or the 'world model' of evolutionists is scientifically correct. There are many reasons why the model of evolution is scientifically false. Any theory which proposes random or stochastic methods as the source of anything is ipso facto unscientific. Science is about order in the Universe. With each scientific discovery we peel away the unknown and with it the randomness on which evolution relies on. Note that I said discover. The order in nature is discovered, it is already there. It is not manufactured, it already exists. Further, science is not about words. It is about facts. The language does not matter, it is the facts that matter. To call science mere words really shows contempt for your alleged profession.