On the Cobb

So I was reading another article tonight. This one about Cobb county and their fight about evolution in the schools. It is about a biology textbook that had a sticker inside the cover which read, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” Such is a truthfull and highly appropriate sticker and yet the people have been loosing their fight it seems. As I read though it dawns on me, the claim of evolutionists here is that religion be seperate from schools. I don't agree of course, but let's go with it for a second and see what happens. To seperate religion and science (which is the supposed goal here) we have to define them. (A small step often overlooked, but very essential to the process.)

Religion: A belief in a deity/creator and the consequent decisions and actions that follow accordingly to that deity.

Science: The observation and investigation through hypothesis followed by empirical testing which seeks to understand and prove a topic or problem.

Now looking at these definitions, how is it that an evolutionist/atheist can count the removal of religion and God in any real sense? Let me put it this way, a belief or claim in "no God" is a religious belief not a scientific one. So to say that religion must be removed from anything means that no claim at all can be made that refutes or presses any kind of origins claim OR other form of spiritual related topic OR any topic that even touches the fringe of a deity related issue be it through philosophical or scientific means.

"Why not?" Because science cannot prove such a thing. Yes, it can hypothesize, but that is all it can do in that it cannot determine as scientific fact that any deity or consequent actions are false.

"Ok, but how does that relate to atheism being a religion?" Like this, if a person makes a claim on God (in this case that God doesn't exist) then they are taking a side on decision of deity, period. To take a side at all (let alone one that holds action to follow such as no worship, no divine law, no salvation, etc.) means that a decision has been made that falls under the category of religious decision. This is not and cannot be counted as science in that science cannot lay such a claim. It cann't even hypothasise on it because that leads to a decision. To say that that the design of the world seems random indicates that a decision is being made that presses against God existance while a statement that says the desgin of the world cannot be random is a statement indicating that a decision is being made which agrees with a designer, aka God. And so while I read this article (and others of late, from both camps) I find it absurd that people (both scientists and layman alike) rally up behind the claims of "no God" and call it science. This really couldn't be farther from the truth.

...so much for "science", the savior of many.