[xzins]

In the booklet, teachers are instructed to use such discussion questions as: "Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?" The answer to that query is provided as: "Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false."

This is pure opinion, and is, therefore, religious in nature. It is not in the purview of a teacher to be teaching this.

For my part, evolution is inherently antireligious. Richard Dawkins agrees with me. I am a strong conservative, evangelical Christian. Dawkins is a world-famous atheistic evolutionist.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

Dawkins.... I am going to ask your permission to post something about him.

May I? Please.

Pretty Please?

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

[steve-b]

This is pure opinion, and is, therefore, religious in nature.

Nonsense. It is established fact, 100% proven by finding even one person who believes in both evolution and religion (which is trivially easy to do).

[supercat]

For my part, evolution is inherently antireligious.

Only if one believes that everything that exists must have been created the same way.

I find the religious arguments about evolution to be puzzling, since evolution actually provides the best explanation for how parts of Genesis could be true.

The number of different animal species that exist in the world today is sufficiently large that putting two animals of each species into Noah's Ark would have been impossible--they wouldn't fit. If, however, one accepts evolution is a means by which a small set of progenitor species could result in a larger set of descendant species, then the size of the ark is no longer a problem. Time scale might be, but I'm not sure that the Genesis measures of prehistoric time were meant to be taken literally. Rather hard to have 'days' and 'nights', for example, before the Sun and Moon are created on the third 'day'.