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.