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?
I'm not talking about teaching a bible class - or Koran, or The Eightfold Path - in public school.
And yes, science, and philosophy, separated their spheres from religion in a difficult time.
They used to be fused. And religion was the ruler. If it's not known by religion, or if it contradicts what we think religion says, it's wrong.
Now what has occurred? Science is the ruler. If it can't be known by science it doesn't exist. If it can't be proven by science, it's wrong.
BOTH are errors, unskillful education.
There must be a way to avoid either error and teach the truth. It is at least as harmful to have science be the only arbiter of truth.
What we are teaching then is scientism. It is false, debunked centuries ago and it is very very harmful. Yet it is a popular cultural view.
We must find a way to avoid both errors.
This strikes me as supremely wrongheaded. I can scarcely imagine a frame of mind that puts aside one set of considerations at one time, and them reassumes them at a later time.
Certainly the lore of science has exemplars of its heroes maintaining a scientific frame of mind in a religious context. Galileo became preoccupied with the period of a swinging lamp during a church service, a very "subversive" tale in the context you provide, and one which suggests the ultimate preeminence of the scientific point of view.