The Importance of the First Amendment

Teaching that the Earth is round also contradicts the religious teachings of anyone who believes the Earth is actually flat. Your argument means that we can't teach anything, for fear it might contradict some religious belief.Science should be taught in science classrooms. Nothing else belongs there, and nothing should be left out. Ignorance is not an answer to anything. That evolution occurs is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution is the model used to describe the mechanism by which evolution happens - that is, genetic mutations and genetic drift guided by natural selection.Its the same as gravity. That gravity exists is an observed fact. The Theory of Gravity is the model we use to explain the mechanism by which gravity functions. Any teacher who actually says such a thing is out of line, even if I'd agree with his sentiment. but where in any school's curriculum is this taught?Schools teach the Theory of Evolution. They don't make comments regarding religion - they aren't allowed to talk about religion in school, in a positive or negative way. Thats the whole establishment clause.If a scientific theory contradicts a religious belief, that doesn't mean we have to stop teaching it. Hell, Young Earth Creationism alone would require us to stop teaching all of geology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics to avoid contradicting its beliefs. There's not a whole lot left. In other words, you choose ignorance.We did that for a few thousand years. It didn't work so well.

Your reaction would be appropriate if the "negative light" was due to a historically inaccurate bias. It's not. Religiously-motivated atrocities like the Crusades, the subjugation (and behavior) of the Aztecs, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and others all happened. The teachers are not presenting religion in a negative light, religion is presentig itself in a negative light.Your position seems to be that we should gloss over or sugar-coat historical facts (or scientific facts) that might offend a person's religious beliefs. But the cold truth is that objective facts will often contradict subjective beliefs, and giving those subjective beliefs some sort of free pass is identical to letting children believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If a belief is contradicted by objective evidence, purposefully avoiding the subject does nothing mroe than promote ignorance. That's not what Bluejay said. He said that you're presenting a false dilemma - the choice between science and religion is not a binary one. You can choose both, as many religious people do. The Catholic Church as a whole has accepted evolution as factually accurate over the Biblical Creation myth; surely if the Catholic Church can accept both science and religion, the two cannot be mutually exclusive. Science is aimed at exactly one target: modeling the observable Unvierse in the most accurate way possible. Science does not aim to disprove any deity. Science makes no statements whatsoever on unfalisfiable claims like the existence of god - until such time as we can actually make a meaningful test to show whether god exists or not, his existence is irrelevant to science.On the other hand, we can disprove literal interpretations of the Bible. But again, that's not the target. The point is to model the observable Universe in the msot accurate way possible. If the most accurate model to date contradicts Young Earth Creationism, science is still not trying to disprove god; it's a side effect of YOung Earth Creationism having no connection to facts or reality. Every time objective evidence contraditcs traditional subjective beliefs you can't say "zomg, science is at war with religion!"Stoneage mythology has a tendencey to be wrong in light of objective evidence. In that way, Creationism is absolutely no different from any other religious creation myth. And your ignorance of the topic is laughable. Intelligent Design refers not to the concept of a potential designer, but to the modern attempts of Creationists to wriggle their way into public schools in the way of the recent Dover case. Modern ID is a conspiracy to discount science.As for the reaction you're receiving, it is in very large part due to the vast majority of Creationists we see here who know nothing about evolution, yet think they can prove it wrong anyway. The other part is your silly "we shouldn't teach evolution becasue it might offend religious people" nonsense. Again, if we decline to teach any scientific theory that contradicts Creationist beliefs, we'll have to throw out all of biology, geology, astronomy, radiology, and other fields. There won't be a whole lot left of science class to teach.Choosing ignorance for fear of offending the religious pushes human development back a few hundred years. Scientific definitions are very different and more specific than common-use definitions. A scientific theory is a model of an observed process that has been tested rigorously and has proven to be highly accurate. That's a lot different from your definition, which is more along the lines of "I have a theory" common-usage. Certainly not. But when a process has been observed, directly, to happen, and the model of that process makes very accurate preditions and is never contradicted by evidence, you can treat it as such. It's entirely possible that we are figments of someone else's imagination, or that we exist inside the Matrix - but we continue to treat our existence in the real world as factual because that model is highly accurate by any test we can create. The possibility of the Earth being young, or evolution being false, is very similar to the possibility of you and I being in the Matrix, or being surrounded by intangible invisible pink unicorns. Irrelevant. The argument is all that matters. Your arguments are weak. Try using more evidence and logic and less martyr complex and emotion.

Let's face it: events like the Crusades and the Inquisition are historically relevant. How religion may or may not "touch a person's life" is not historically relevant. History classes will continue to teach the events that have shaped the world over the course of human history. Quite a few of these events were religiously motivated, and were absolutely horrendous. Religion itself is left alone in school, as it must be - the actual beliefs of any given religion are not discussed. Their activities as political and historically important groups are.It's not the History teacher's fault that religions have committed so many atrocities.And it's not like the non-religiously motivated horrors of human history are ignored, either. Vietnam had nothing to do with religion, for instance, but it was historically important. Awww. Yes, religions are identical to belief in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, fairies, imaginary friends, and any other subjective belief that has no basis in objective evidence. If you believe differently, please feel free to join us over in the "Equating Science with Faith" thread that's still active.