TBC - after reading that paryngula article and comments, I'm now inclined to agree with you. It doesn't belong in Ancient History either. If religionists want to teach that nonsense to schoolkids, let them do it at home or in their own schools.

I'm not sure what's in the English curriculum these days, but there might be a 'myths and legends' unit where Creationism might reasonably be compared with other origin myths?

The way to demonstrate that "A" and "B" are consistent, is to design a MODEL whereby they co-exist without contradictions. This by no means implies that the model is correct: better models can be found later, but the very existence of the first model constitutes a proof of no-contradiction.

In the case of A=science vs. B=creationism, the following such model exists:

[
God created the world 5770 years ago, but in His infinite power and wisdom, so to allow us free choice whether to believe in Him or not, He designed it to be "old", so He placed old features in this world that He created, including geological layers, fossils and dinosaur-bones embedded in rocks with carbon-isotope prints supposedly corresponding to millions of years ago, as well as galaxies spreading out billions of light-years apart with velocities of about 90% the speed of light... and many more features of this nature, some of which we have not even discovered yet...
]

Please don't try to tell me that this model is false (I would tend to agree), but its very existence is a proof that at least in the area of evolution, science and religion are not contradicting. I believe it is likely the same in others areas of religion as well - models are welcome.

Pericles....you make an observation which does not entirely correlate with the facts.

You suggest Cat Stevens words are simply saying 'It can be intepreted like that" rather than "Cat Stevens is stating it as a fact that it IS interpreted like that, and such intepretation is APPLIED in some countries under Islamic law and if Rushdie was in one..he would be toast!"

Now..unless you can show good factual reason for your 'spin' on that quote.. I suggest you are just reading it wrongly.

But..time a mild Whack-a-StevenLmeyer :)

Steven.....calling such ideas 'silly' is a bit naughty re the RRT mate.. "holding peoples faith up to public contempt and ridicule"

I don't mind you doing it myself, in fact my problem is not with you but the law. So..without meaning to offend you, I point this out at every available opportunity to raise awareness about it :)

REPEAL THE RRT2001! REPEAL THE RRT2001! REPEAL THE RRT2001!

The PC appoach to criticising religion is to use words like 'not valid based on available facts' or some similar non infammatory language.

If someone can say "The new testament permits child sexual abuse" and then showed it with sound exegesis and verse..I have no argument.

Science is science.... "There was a big bang" or whatever.

Religion is religion "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"....

I don't see much conflict myself.

Religion and science can coexist, they deal with quit different subjects, one deals with reality and one doesn't.

Most religious people are pragmatic about it and choose reality over faith. It's only when it doesn't cost them anything do they choose the later.

You will always get people lining up to join cults ( Hi Runner) we just have to be watchful and try to make sure they don't hurt themselves or anyone else.

quote...<<..most people don't understand..the nature of science.>>>

WHO"S FAULT IS THIS?

<<They are unable/..to distinguish between science/and pseudoscience>>>

correct yet again

<<Collectively,..we regularly suffer/the consequences of scientific illiteracy,>>>

well said

<<Scientific investigation..is a process>>

correct...a replicatable/repeatable process...that has faulsifyables...that if found errant...invalidate the theory...

and the fraud sciences..it spawned

a process..<<..that depends upon hypothesis testing/
and demands that scientific claims be offered in a manner that permits them to be falsified.>>..yes..

true science/is the height of man-kinds evolution

<<Simply put,if you can't phrase your hypothesis..in a falsifiable manner,...it falls outside the bounds of science.>>...

this is correct

NOW PLEASE STATE
THE FAULSIFYABLES OF EVOLUTION.out of genus..into new genus

you know macro-evolution...
where mutations...CHANGE GENUS

not one change of genus..has ever been recorded...EVER
all the real science..is
re species evolving...WITHIN their genus

THE LIE IS THAT SPECIES...can transgress out of genus
simply speaking..there is not one...recorded...

not one observed..
not one having faulsiyables

PLEASE state definitivly...
the faulsifyables of evolution by species...

in even one genus
INTO THE SPECIE...of a new genus...

as repeatedly stated...THERE ISNT EVEN ONE../so again

please supply...the faulsifyables..underpinning
EVOLUTION OUT OF GENUS...macro-evolution

not micro-evolution of..species..within their family/genus

like i trust what priests..or religion believe
PRESENT THE SCIENCE/faulsifyables

PRESENT the science...
just one faulsiable case..
of evolution..exta/..out of genus

present your faulsifyables

"the overwhelming majority of the religious leaders with whom I interact regularly believe that religion is about morality and spirituality rather than science. They want to make the world a better, a fairer and a more just place and they believe they can accomplish that within a spiritual community."

But WHY do they believe that? Do they have empirical -- ie scientific -- reasons? If so then they are doing science. If they believe it because they want to, then there is no more reason to believe they can do it than there is to believe that they can walk on water, or ascend to heaven on the back of a flying horse.

The advantage of science is that it comes with built-in tests to see whether practitioners are getting it right or wrong. "Am I making the world a better place? If not, let's try something else." It's because religion has no such test that after more than 5000 years it still has not achieved one undisputed success or satisfactorily answered one single question.