That's not what I said, actually. I don't think the Quran teaches something wrong. It actually teaches things in a way which can be interpreted in more than one way. To me and other believers, this is a sign of its truth, whereas a skeptic, will see this vague language as a sign that it is not true. That's why I don't think it really belongs in this discussion.

However, you did not address my other reasons. Science class does not only teach people scientific theories, it also teaches about the people who discovered them, and about the history of the sciences and how they evolved. In this context, it would be very appropriate to mention religious ideas.

Whether good or bad, religion has had a lot of influence on science. Many scientists who laid the foundations for modern science, were believers. The idea of intelligent design is not a theory, but more of a conclusion. You can argue that it's a wrong conclusion, but since it is not testable in this life, we can't really say for sure. This is a great example of where science cannot answer certain questions. I really think science class should teach this idea i.e. that it cannot answer certain questions.

There are a lot of questions which science is just not the right tool for. The concepts of right and wrong are another example of this. With science, you could prove that it would be most efficient for humans to eliminate their elderly, once they get sick, or the handicapped, because they pose a burden on society, indeed this has even been suggested, and tried. But this does not make it 'right'.

Science needs to stop claiming that it is the only way to truth. I think it's an important and valid method of learning about the physical universe, but it is strangely deficient when it comes to anything outside of this arena, like morality, religion, and relationships.

As for creationism, as taught in the Bible, your absolutely right. I still think it could be addressed in a science class, just for its historical influence on the sciences (good or bad). It should not be introduced as a 'working theory', because it is not supported by the data.

I'm not suggesting that scientist hand over the curriculum to the church, or mosque, or temple. Simply that science needs to know where it works and where it doesn't, and to be honest about where it originated and evolved- in a religious society, by religious people.

You could also describe the more current trend of science leaning towards atheism. Whether it's a permanent trend or just a phase, we have yet to find out. But saying 'there is no God' is a positive statement which also needs proof or evidence. It is a conclusion, not a theory.



I know, but is this because they are not testable theories, or because they have nothing to do with science? I would agree that they are not testable, but really they have a lot to do with science and how it evolved.

Science has produced theories about how life was begun, so far those that have been tested like the Miller experiments done in the 50's, have not provided evidence that life generated through chemical processes. Should we not mention these experiments? Science class should teach the history of science, and where it has been successful, and where it has failed, and also where it does not serve to provide answers.

Over the course of this discussion, I have changed my views. I realize that Intelligent Design is not really a theory. I agree that it should not be taught as a theory, but science is a whole subject, not just a string of theories, in this way, I think it does fit.