Other types of knowledge:

1. Morality - right from wrong.
2. Relationships - do you love your mother? Prove it.
3. Religion - i.e. how did the universe come into existence, and what happens when we die.

None of these things can be proven or disproved by science. Yet we use them every day. Science has been trying to eliminate religion, ever since the religious people had tried to suppress science.

I would suggest a more holistic approach, which allows science to proceed, but without completely ignoring religion.

I never suggested stopping science, or ignoring scientific data.

Also, just because one religion has scientific errors associated with it (Christianity) it does not mean all religions are wrong. I would recommend teaching the latest scientific theories, but also, why not teach that a lot of great scientists in the past also believed in God as the creator of the universe.

Since science class teaches the history of science, and about scientists, you can't ignore the role religion has played in the evolution of science (whether good or bad).

I would not recommend ignoring scientific data like red shift, in order to try and support a religious view. I would rather re-interpret religious texts, to see if they can be reconciled with well established scientific data. From what I have seen this is easy to do in the case of the Quran, but not so easy with the Bible. This is why, as I've explained in the past, the Christian world had a negative reaction to science, and why the Muslim world did not.

And for Tiles, I only said that you accused religion of not being knowledge, which you did. It is a type of knowledge. Now you accuse me of being illogical. Please tell me what I have said which is illogical.

My argument has been that if you say religion is not knowledge, then you must admit that morality is not knowledge either. Relationships must also be discarded, because we cannot 'prove' that we love someone.