School district recalls evolution themed T-shirts claiming ''we must remain neutral on religion'

This is already being argued on another seed but, just to reiterate, the idea that presenting science to students is taking a "religious" stance makes me sick to my stomach. Who elected Taliban members to that schoolboard?

It sounds cute, and this is about the BAND, not religion or evolution. I saw a Simpsons episode where the opening had Homer evolving and Moe reverting so maybe they should think about suing Fox too. Good grief, this is where kids learn their self-entitlement issues. Sherry Melby, maybe you should take your child out of the band if you disagree instead of ruining it for everyone else. I'm so annoyed I can't write anymore. Besides, it's probably not PC to use the words 'evolution', 'creation', or 'religion' when you write because, my gosh, you might offend someone with nothing better to think about. <sarcasm>

Well.. here is something that is really 'Out There' - there are some that think that so-called humans are actually planetary travelers from a distant past that use to inhabit other planets. To save the species they brought people from the planets before the demise of their planets, so that they could repopulate this one.

From what I have seen over the many decades I've been around - it seems not so far fetched. ha ha

In my opinion, if teachers are not allowed to teach the theory of creation alongside the theory of naturalistic evolution, they shouldn't be allowed to teach either theory. Science by definition doesn't require a pure "naturalistic" explanation of our origin. Science is simply the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Science doesn't rule out a supernatural theory of origin. Most "science" done today is done with naturalistic presuppositions which would lend to interpretation of observable, empirical data in a purely naturalistic way. When "science" is done with supernatural presuppositions, the same data is interpreted in a different way. The question is, which interpretation of the data is correct.

Those that call evolutionary theory a "religion" probably more so are implying that the only two plausible explanations for our origin (creation or evolution/naturalism) are competing "worldviews" which both attempt to answer the questions of our origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Naturalism answers the question of origin with "slime + time + chance" while being completely unable to answer the question of where matter and space came from in the first place. Naturalism gives no answer to the question of the meaning of life (intrinsic meaning not self-given meaning). There is no absolute morality in the naturalistic worldview (only subjective personal morality). Lastly, naturalism views our ultimate destiny as a return to the dirt (ending of consciousness). The creation worldview offers answers to the questions of meaning, morality, and destiny as varied as the number of stars in the sky (depending on which "religion" is answering the questions), but purport that we were created by an intelligent being.

I personally am a Christian and believe the Christian worldview offers the most satisfying (and true) answer to each question. We were created by the God of the Bible (origin) to glorify His attributes of grace, mercy, justice, and holiness (meaning) by loving God and loving people ,which includes repenting of sin and trusting that God's Son Jesus Christ paid the price for our wrongs against God and man, and living a life of obedience to Him (morality) after which we will spend eternity in a place called heaven with God (destiny).

I don't want any religion to be taught in schools, but it is very important that children learn that life either evolved or it was created. There are two reasonable starting points.

They want to ban any reference in our schools to science? Jeezez! Yep, son, We have met the enemy and he is us