Two points: First, Holy cow man, you're up early on a Sunday (for an evolutionist). Second, your statement misses the point of my posts and Freds. At no point did either of us say that religion is science.
BTW, some of us are just as tired of hearing people say "evolutiondidit" over and over. Evolution, to me, is like rust. It is what is happening to the old Nash rusting away in the field. But rust did not build the Nash.
If only God had stamped serial numbers on us. But that would have taken away all the fun. People need challenges, that's why the rubic cube was so popular.
I love science. The more we learn, the more we discover just how complicated the "it" is in the statement "Goddidit." The more we know, the bigger He is...
Ultimately, of course, science is irrelevant. We are just the little boy taking apart the alarm clock to see how it works. Once we think we can figure out the meaning of life if we figure out how the alarm clock works, well, now that's religion.
Remember, science asks "what." - - Religion asks "why."
So remember that the next time somebody wants to diddle the science curriculum on religious grounds.
I've been reading your posts, and frankly I'm struggling to figure out what it is that you're trying to say. You've told me, and also VadeRetro, that we've missed your point. Perhaps so, but I had a lot of fun posting some of the many profound differences between science and religion. Anyway, if you truly believe that science is irrelevant, then even though you've said that you love science, I'm getting the impression that you may not know what science really is.
And as for your point, whatever it was that VadeReteo and I keep missing, would you please state that point, explicitly, so that we can have the benefit of your views?