No, I don't think so. What this sordid affair is all about is whose religion is to be taught — to the exclusion of all others. We have already identified scientism as an ersatz religion. Atheism is a system of religious belief as well.
May I point out that creationism isn't a religion at all, it's a cosmology? And as such belongs firmly to philosophy?
Not only that, but, Jesus came to make ALL religion(s) Obsolete, AND DID?..
And produced the first metaphysical evolutionary cycle..
"You MUST be born again"- Jesus...
May I point out that creationism isn't a religion at all, it's a cosmology? And as such belongs firmly to philosophy?
Utter nonsense. All of it.
Why are you folks deliberately trying to confuse the clear lines between science and religion? Are you truly unable to perceive the differences?
Considering that creationism is part of fundamentalist Islam, as much as it is of Christianity, it certainly could be said to be part of a philosophy several religions have in common, rather than a religion in and of itself.
Just don't claim creationism is science.
As though claiming that God does not exist and that scripture is a purely mythological construct, is not, somehow, a religious declaration. And it is this dichotomy that has school patrons so riled up. They do not want the values they teach their children at home to be contradicted at school (a school they are forced to support). Most patrons have no problem with the facts of science, but they have a lot of problems with the ontological conclusions derived from some of those facts.
There is a solution to this apparent dilemma, but most every time I raise the question with the defenders of science, they seem to suddenly discover a need to attend to pressing business elsewhere. This is becoming, I think, a circumstance requiring a closer examination. Particularly since I know that others have had an experience similar to mine.