If science is truly neutral on religion as claimed, the requests of critics of evolution wouldn't ruffle many feathers.
This point seems to keep spinning around and around. If there is a scientific basis for that criticism, then I would expect science to consider it. But since the basis of the criticism is purely religious, why should that be addressed by science?
If science is clueless regarding God's existence or non-existence, then a few minutes of class time discussing this fact wouldn't hurt anything.
Again, why is the burden of faith-reinforcement being placed upon science? Spending a few minutes in church discussing the lack of evidence for God's existence wouldn't hurt anything either. Since the faith of many of us requires no proof, this wouldn't (and doesn't) change that faith. But to some whose faith might be weak, it could have serious repercussions.
Instead, let's let theologians discuss God in church in the manner they see fit, and let scientists/teachers discuss nature in science class.
You have said much better what I was trying to say in my post 210.
Hello Libertarian! Good to hear from you as always! I'm about debated-out for the day, so you get the last word!
We'll meet again, I'm sure!