You don't understand what science is and what it is not. I have never advocated teaching religion in the place of science. I have repeatedly said that science is proper within its self-imposed bounds of naturalism.
When science wanders outside those bounds and attempts to answer questions it is not equipped to answer; it is functioning as a belief system, not as science. It is proper to point out that science is functioning as a belief system in those situtations.
You misrepresent me in order to have an argument. Is that how 'science' works?
>>You don't understand what science is and what it is not. I have never advocated teaching religion in the place of science. I have repeatedly said that science is proper within its self-imposed bounds of naturalism.
Good. And all this time I thought you wanted science to try to explain the supernatural. After all, when science can explain a 'supernatural' it becomes the natural!
Sort of like how people once thought that Angels carried the sun around the earth. That was the supernatural explanation. Now we have the natural, scientific explanation.
Again, which version of naturalism?
It seems to be a word you bandie about, yet you never explain it.
I'm not misrepresenting you, just trying to understand why you condone religious dogma being taught in science classes?