In my opinion, even if you do not believe that Torasco v. Watkins provides the necessary legal weight, given your posted definitions and the Secular Humanism website that I cited, you would have to agree that Secular Humanism meets the definition of religion.
You would have to also agree that the beliefs of the Secular Humanists sound an awful lot like many evo posters from Darwin Central...And their beliefs go way beyond science (into faith and religion).
You posted: "In my opinion, even if you do not believe that Torasco [sic] v. Watkins provides the necessary legal weight, given your posted definitions and the Secular Humanism website that I cited, you would have to agree that Secular Humanism meets the definition of religion.
"You would have to also agree that the beliefs of the Secular Humanists sound an awful lot like many evo posters from Darwin Central...And their beliefs go way beyond science (into faith and religion)."
Reply: Roy Torcasso is alive and well and living in Maryland. If you are familiar with the case regarding Art VI in the Constitution, you might try to get the name right.
What is your definition of religion? Evolution has no alter boys, no prayers, no church establishments, no tax-exemption, no record of sex scandals, no pastors, preachers, or priests, no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation, no holidays, no banned books or statements about heresy and blasphemy, no record of burning witches or heretics, no public displays of prayer or piety, no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth', no recited creed, no mythological 'transubstantions', no edifices with crosses.
These are evidences of religion. The idea of evolution, based on observation of the natural world as we see it, does not have any of these attributes of religion.
Ipso facto, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Gravity, the Germ Theory of Disease are not religions.