I always find it ironically funny when some religious people seem to think that the most dismissive thing they can think of to call evolutionary biology is "a religion", as if by being a religion it would automatically a bad, silly, or worthless thing...
I often hear anti-evolutionists try to dismiss evolutionary biology as "just another religion" -- but you never hear pro-evolutionists try to dismiss opposing views as "just another science", because the pro-evolutionists hold science in *high* regard... Apparently a lot of the "religionists" hold religion in low regard, which is quite odd.
Nah. They don't think that of religion -- just of religions other than their personal interpretation of their own religion. And as for dismissing "Darwinism" as a religion -- they think everything is religion -- because they have zero appreciation for all that's involved in the scientific method.
Parallel thought here: I have quite an issue with religion in the science classroom, but just say we accepted the Creationists' 'equal time/teach the controversy' bit of special pleading--and introduced science into places of worship.
What would that look like? Chemical analysis of communal wine to test for transubstantiation? Antennae hooked up to oscilloscopes, scanning frequencies to detect if prayers are getting through? I mean no disrespect to religion here--I'm merely trying to show the absurdity of doing the wrong thing in the wrong place.
It is a minority of folk who find a conflict between their religion and science--but the issue is a religious one. To demand that science produce answers only in conformance with some religious doctrine is utter folly