So I demonstrated conclusively that to teach evolution, which is based on the rejection of the Christian doctrine of origins, is itself a violation of Church?State
The state when responsible for education must teach
something. If the religious views are used then it must, since they conflict, reject some and support (to some degree) others. In a diverse, pluralistic society that recognizes the danger of having the state set and prefer any religion what can be done to be as fair as possible?
The choice is to teach that which is
not derived from any religion but is derived using methods that do not depend on any ones belief system.
The fact that the results are acceptable to some members of all the major religions demonstrates that this is a pretty good way to achieve the desired separation of church and state and be as fair as possible and avoid endless religious arguments. The results are also acceptable to the majority of all the world's major religions as an added bonus.
There are a minority few who adopt a different view of this. That is unfortunate but not a good reason for doing anything different.
We use a system both here in Canada and in the US where impartial courts are used to sort out issues like this when they arise. Those courts have decided on more than one occasion that your argument is not valid.
The scientific consensus does not "reject the Christian doctrine of origins". A cult-like sub group of Christianity says that their particular interpretation of Christian doctrine is false if the consensus is correct. Most Christians are not so theologically foolish and have no problem. The scientific process allows for belief in a creator if one wants to believe. It does
not allow one to dictate the details of how the creator acted. That is determined from the evidence left behind from the created things themselves.
Your "equation" starts with the assumption that there is only one religious story of creation. That is false.
Your reasoning presumes that all Christians agree with your interpretation of what is "doctrine". That is false.
You implicitly assume that the scientific approach to determining things is equivalent to a religion. That is false and has been shown to be so before various courts.
That is why you are declaring victory prematurely.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-05-2004 02:55 PM