[js1138]

As some of the anti-evolution posters have pointed out, science operates on a set of assumptions. The most fundamental of these assumptions is that a natural cause can be found for any given phenomen. When you abandon this assumption, you open the board for every possible hypothesis.

You may not trust me on this, but I will tell you anyway, Religious critics of science will be better off if science maintains a strictly materialistic bias.

Without the assumption of materialism, the definition of science will be opened to every New Age horror imaginable, and they will all be required in public schools. Better the enemy you know...

[aft_lizard]

I consider science to be founded mostly on rules and fact, and the assumptions based on logic rather than good guesses. Having said that and as a lover both of Science and God, not equally of course I see room in the classroom to mention a competing ideology to Darwinism, an ideology that has been around a few thousand years longer, embraced by 2/3's of the worlds inhabitants. 5 minutes of classroom time to say " Darwinism isnt the only theory, there is also the Theory of Intelligent design", isnt that much of a compromise.

[b_sharp]

Hah! I dare you to prove astrology doesn't work. Astrology was the precursor to astronomy and has been used for thousands of years. It is true science.

[HKMk23]

The most fundamental of these assumptions is that a natural cause can be found for any given phenomen.

Here, let me fix that for you:
The most fundamental of these assumptions is that a natural cause can be found for any given phenomen.

Please adequately defend the assertion that all causailty must necessarily be limited to the realm of the material.