AntiGod education should not be compulsary (even for non wealthy)

Science is not a religion.Religion is revelatory. Knowledge in religion stems from God through chosen prophets. Prophets don't choose themselves - there's no training or schooling in the world that can make God dictate the next book of the Bible to you.Science is participatory. Anybody can do it. All it takes is some study in order to catch up to everybody else, and you're on your way. If you don't like the conclusions of scientists it's entirely possible to analyze the data and come up with your own.If I don't agree with the statements of a prophet, what recourse do I have? And how do I tell the difference between a "prophet" and a "liar"? These are not problems science has.What rituals are performed in science? What observances are held? What churches exist for Science? These are common - many would say required - features of religion. Science has none of these.You can say that science is a religion all you like, but saying it doesn't make it true. Science is religion-neutral. There's no such thing. That is, if by "Godly science" you mean "rejecting any and all data that conflicts with the accounts in the Bible." That would not be science. That would be self-deception.And why should we teach only Godly science? What about Muslim science? Or Vedic science? Or Buddist science? Why are you so Christian-centric? America is a society of religious plurality. Your push to have God - and only God - in the classroom is simply un-American.

Well hell, I don't think Huckleberry Finn "embraces" the Genesis account, except as a metaphor or myth at some point, but I don't think that makes it "anti-God", do you?Isn't it possible to be religion-neutral to you?

Funny, then, that atheists (while accounting for about 5-10% of Americans) constitute less than 1% of the prison population, and that it's Christians who lead the country in getting divorces...We're getting off-topic.

Who's ridiculing belief? You're way off base here. Maybe you could show me in a science textbook where it says "people who believe in God are lame." A point that you have failed to defend. Evolution is science - it is an explanitory model that makes testable, repeatable claims. So, in fact, we are talking about science. Fine. One of the things we're able to percieve about Creation is that it's 13 billion years old, and that all life on this Earth is decended from a common ancestor through a process of random mutation and natural selection.If that doesn't jive with a book some guys wrote 2000 years ago, so what? What is, is. There's just no way you can look at the natural world and use it to support Creationist views. Absolutely none of that stuff depends on the Earth only being 6,000 years old. All of that stuff is still as true in a world that's 4 billion years old and where all species are linked through common ancestry.

I sure don't. In fact it's difficult to see how the supernatural could exist, by definition - if something can cause an effect in the natural world, it becomes a part of the natural world, and therefore subject to scientific investigation.

You're not going to get very far arguing that your opponents are delusional or brainwashed - after all, that's exactly what we claim about you.Honestly you're the best example of why we should keep God out of the school - the kids might grow up like you.Why don't we talk about what we can agree on - repeatable, objective evidence?

What, reason is too good for kids? Maybe for yours, but I plan to teach mine how to think. What the fuck are you even talking about? Not a word of your post makes sense. So do I. I just don't think that they should come from fairy tales.

Yeah, funny thing about that. I guess it really makes evangelism a lot easier when you only talk to people who are already ready to believe you.That's why I like science so much. It works whether or not you believe in it. Try it. Wake up tomorrow totally skeptical about the reliability of your TV. Be as convinced as you can that it won't turn on, and then try to turn it on and see what happens. If it worked yesterday, then I predict it will work for you tomorrow, whether or not you believe it. None?

Woo-hoo. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. It may be unchanging, but it's unchangingly wrong. You'll have to pardon me if I hitch my wagon to the horse that's actually going somewhere. I'd rather be mostly right, and getting righter, than eternally wrong, like the Bible.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-24-2004]