Since when did evolution become science?
heh!
The US Constitution makes a clear distinction between science and matters of faith.
Have a read of
Judge Jones' findings in the Dover School Board case for a clear and well reasoned explanation of why in the US evolution is legally a scientific, not a religious issue.
Jones' Judgment may take a while to download on your line, but it'll be worth the wait. He explains the distinction between science and religion in language that any intelligent layperson can understand.
You'll probably find you agree with his thinking. Essentially he's saying that religion and science are different things, and rational argument in a Law Court can decide whether a theory is scientific or theological.
In particular (perhaps to the discomfort of the overly "rationalist"), he points out that an acceptance of the theory of evolution is not in itself incompatible with belief in a creator-god. That is, science is compatible with belief in a divine creator.
But science may be incompatible with particular "religious" claims. That can happen. A fringe religious group may well want to fudge the distinction the better to foist their religious ideas on others.
Perhaps (just an example) some religion asserts that the stars in the night-sky are the departed souls of their revered religious leaders. Another religion may dispute this, saying the stars are the shining souls of their own dead leaders. Well, they would both be making a religious claim, not a scientific one, and they would not be allowed to use public schools to teach their religion as science.
Judge Jones is a most excellent read in coming to understand this distinction. We *have* to make the distinction to preserve freedom of religious belief. Freedom of religious belief demands freedom from religious coercion.
The Canadian Science Minister has shown he understands neither science nor religion. That's hardly an uncommon failing it's true, but it is a somewhat embarrassing howler for a man in his position all the same.
!!!one!!!mad:!!
