I don't support the inclusion of anything in science classes that doesn't have empirical evidence behind it. If you can prove God exists, then great. Use the scientific method, put your findings up for peer review, then teach it in school.
So then, G-d used evolution to create the world, but he didn't "guide" it? If this is how your mind operates, then it is full of contradictions. I can understand G-d being behind evolution, or not being behind evolution, but to insist that he "used evolution" to create the universe while attacking those who teach this in the classroom as "creationists" is illogical. If He did He did, and if He didn't He didn't. Or is that too simplistic for your "advanced" eighteenth century enlightenment rationalist mind?
The invocation of the definition of science is flawed. First, definitions can change over time (Newton certainly considered theology to be science), and to say that science is defined by scientists is to engage in tautology.
Reality is reality. Who ever said that only that which can be confirmed by the scientific method can exist? Have you ever tested "thou shalt not kill" by the scientific method? Or even whether or not George Washington ever existed? If there is a G-d who has communicated with man via Revelation, what He has so communicated is certainly just as true as anything confirmable by the scientific method.
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that entire history of the world only ONE religion was founded publicly by the Invisible, Unincarnate G-d speaking directly to perhaps over three million people at once? Perhaps you were unaware of the fact that no other religion in the history of the world has ever even had the audacity to make this claim?
Don't tell me . . . you can't believe in a historical event because "that isn't science!" I bet you accept a great deal of non-supernatural historical facts on faith, however.
If you really believe in "thinking for ourselves," then kindly stop ridiculing people who don't agree with you. It's enough that you people's belief that all human thought is merely biochemical reactions in the brain while knowing full well that this makes "free thought" impossible!
I've never tested "love" either, but I believe in it. However, love cannot be proven scientifically, which is why they don't teach love and relationships in science class.
If you really believe in "thinking for ourselves," then kindly stop ridiculing people who don't agree with you.
Are you being serious? Who's ridicluing who here? You've insulted me 2 or 3 times in one post; I'm supposedly stuck in an 18th century mindset because I don't believe in bronze age deities and creation myths. You seem to think that I have some sort of stake in your opinions and spiritual beliefs, which I don't. Please, keep believing in your publicly founded, unincarnate, God, and quit pretending that I care that you do.