If evolution is a religion, which I assert it is, then why is it not given the same treatment as other religions? Yes, it is a scientific theory as well.
Well, that would make a difference. Even if we grant your premise that it is a religion, it is also by your admission a scientific theory, which makes it different from all other religions, which aren't. It should therefore be treated differently from them. Specifically, it should be treated as a scientific theory, unlike the other religions, which aren't.
Dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution. Like as when Scott (NSCE) said, “In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.”
That is not someone being "dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution". That is someone saying: "In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science."
Deism. Occam's razor demands that he is an unnecessary hypothesis. Hence he does not exist.
Some reasoning would be nice.
Writing in a British newspaper, journalist Paul Johnson calls this well-known nature guru the 'high priest' of the neopagan nature worship of our time.
Paul Johnson has written a lot of silly stuff. Quoting someone (in this case, an idiot) who agrees with you is not the same as producing evidence that you're right.
No, I don't think I'm making a mistake. Let me clarify. Suppose we have two persons who both claim to be scottish. How do we know if they’re telling the truth? It seems that they have to satisfy certain criteria, right? Well, then we extend it to religion. If a group fits the criteria for a religion, it is a true religion, as opposed to a pseudo-religion. Get me here?
But you are equivocating. By "true religion", I obviously mean "a religion that is true", not "something that is truly a religion". You're just playing with words.
Why don’t we take a dual approach. Religious, and Scientific? Sure, one can emphasize just the scientific parts, which it mostly is.
Well, sure. If there is any religious aspect to evolution, then I disagree with it. The scientific facts, on the other hand, are scientific facts, and the scientific theory is a scientific theory. If any loony wants to derive metaphysical or ethical propositions from this, then I quite agree that this should not be taught in schools or anywhere else.
Here’s my question. If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, and the evidence against creation is, too, then how can students be confused?
Because creationist rhetoric involves teaching stuff that creationists have made up. To teach what creationists say is to teach things that are flatly false. On the one hand, one would be teaching the evidence for evolution, which is indeed overwhelming, and on the other hand one would be teaching the made-up stuff which supports creationism, which would be equally "overwhelming" if only it was true. Unless one informs students which is true and which is false (which would hardly suit creationists) then they would indeed end up deeply confused.
Specifically, what kind of reasoning?
Well, y'know, reasoning. You just asserted stuff. That's not reasoning.