But even the slightest mention of the existence of reality or truth on the level of religion is prohibited from being taught. Even the basics of the philosophy of science or knowledge is not taught. And, by ommission, public education infers that only what can be known by science is true.
Also, it is not an "interpretation" that scientific knowledge is a subset of knowledge and reality. It is a "provable" fact.
My objection is not to evolution, and I'm not a fan of ID. I object as strongly to using science to infer metaphysics as I do using religion to deduce science. If Dawkins is the example of an evolutionary scientist then a great deal more than science is being taught under the disguise of science.We may be creating better scientists, but our education has lost more valuable things that used to be part of a basic education.
Thanks very much for your reply.
This is the elephant in the room that the evolutionists do not want to acknowledge.
D, Science has been down the road of allowing Religion to meddle in Science before, hasn't it?
What was the result of that?
I wonder what Galileo thought about that "gentle" fusion of Religion and Science.
How many others found themselves basking in some dank cell, or worse, because their Science didn't toe the Church's line.
Religion has it's place, Science has it's place. Do we want Science Professors preaching evolution Theory in Church?
If the answer to that question is No, then why is it any more appropriate to have Ministers teaching Religious Doctrine in a Science class?