Replies

"As I said, they're either teaching science or they're not. That's the deal."

I didn't sign that deal. I believe they could teach both.

You concede that most major religions allow for a non-literalist interpretation. I agree. So since they are being "sane" by your apparent definition, shouldn't at least -they- be able to squeeze a word in edgewise that they believe that some of the holes in evolutionary theory are filled by intelligent design? IMHO, yeah, they should be able to state that. But nope. They can't. I think that's wrong.

Qwinn

You concede that most major religions allow for a non-literalist interpretation. I agree. So since they are being "sane" by your apparent definition, shouldn't at least -they- be able to squeeze a word in edgewise that they believe that some of the holes in evolutionary theory are filled by intelligent design? IMHO, yeah, they should be able to state that. But nope. They can't. I think that's wrong.

You could plug the gaps of any science with the "theory" that angels are doing the stuff we haven't yet figured out. Would that be wrong? "Wrong" is a loaded word. However you answer that, the "angel theory" wouldn't be a scientific concept, so it should be reserved for a religious setting.