Huh? Where is religion taught as "observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses"? I'd like to go to that church.
It also relies on a lot of speculation and there are uncertainties and controversies that often never get mention in the mainstream media that cloud the line between knowing and speculating
Well, of course this is true. Haven't you ever "kicked around" an idea or two with your buddies before coming to a conclusion? It's what science is all about.
But in practice, there is a whole lot of speculation, guessing, assumptions, and, well, dogma.
I don't quite understand how you can lump "speculation, guessing, assumptions" in with "dogma"...but it's your brain.
As for me, I must go now to finish reviewing for a godless psychology exam. Y'all have fun!
Take a look at various books and articles written by people who started out as atheists and became Christians after investigating the evidence. They do exist. One of the keys to understanding this, in my opinion, is to understand that people constantly take leaps of faith that can never be absolutely proven about almost everything once they leave the relative certainty of cognito ergo sum.
Well, of course this is true. Haven't you ever "kicked around" an idea or two with your buddies before coming to a conclusion? It's what science is all about.
The problem is that school children often aren't taught to kick ideas around. They are taught speculative conclusions as if they are fact. It's not just in the areas of science. The same thing happens in history, literature, etc. A lot of the uncertainty and degree of speculation is hidden from students. One of the reasons that I support the mention of Intelligent Design in the classroom is that it exposes students to the idea of uncertainty in the sciences, something they rarely see unless they go on to a more detailed study of science. And as an added bonus, it might make science seem less settled, boring, and useless if students came to understand that there are still mysteries to uncover and theories to prove and disprove.
I don't quite understand how you can lump "speculation, guessing, assumptions" in with "dogma"...but it's your brain.
Merriam-Webster defines "dogma" as "something held as an established opinion" or "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds". Dogma occurs when you base a position on speculation, guessing, and assumptions and then claim that it's authoritative and established as true. Science is dogmatic when it treats speculation as fact, which it does in the mainstream all too often (e.g., global warming, cold fusion, etc.).
It's certainly fair to claim that evolution is the "best guess" of science, but that's not how it's taught. A lot of children walk away with the assumption that it's proven fact. If you want me to point at the bigger problem, it's that schoolchildren are rarely thought to think and are often simply taught to repeat back what the teacher says or, to put it another way, obey. If schools did a better job of teaching children to assess the evidence on their own and make up their own minds, I think it would be less of an issue. But that's where I think Intelligent Design can play a role. It tells kids that certain things in life are unsettled and they'll need to figure out what they believe themselves.