[lews]

Your original post contained the following:

"Unfortunately, if taught in schools the net result would leave the next generation at the mercy of those countries that build their science on a foundation of truth."

By implying that a science which considers religion will leave us at the mercy of other countries that build their science of a foundation of truth directly implies religion is false. If that is not what you meant then you shouldn't have said it.

[lews]

If the shoe fits...

[TightSqueeze]

By implying that a science which considers religion will leave us at the mercy of other countries that build their science of a foundation of truth directly implies religion is false. If that is not what you meant then you shouldn't have said it.

It is beer30 and I still understand what you are saying, yes you are literally correct, I did say that. This may sound strange, but I believe there is a separate truth for religion, that does not have to conform to the rigorous standards that would be required from scientific fact.

Who am I to question anyone’s God, as faith is revealed, science has no such luxury and must be proven. So, I am not saying that religion is false, only that it is not provable using scientific theory and thus is a poor candidate for scientific fact.