Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
Religion, in all respects, is also a theory...a theory that many logical minded people have faith in, just like evolution. If this is a supposed reason for allowing evolution to be discussed in the classroom, then religion should also be allowed the same courtesy. Neither are infallible, and each are supported by people with strong views on the subject matter at hand...regardless of the fact that it's all hypothetical anyway. For this reason, either both should be discussed with unbiased neutrality, or neither should be discussed at all. You can't simply choose one over the other because a theory seems more logical, while in fact, the theory is unsupported by any real 'scientific' conclusions. This was the basis of the original argument, yet many of those who've responded did so to attempt to support their own personal conclusions. Even though none of said conclusions were backed up by any scientific fact whatsoever. You can't support an idea by conjecture alone...that's biased. You can only present your views, then have the courtesy to let others do the same...and eventually agree that none of the conclusions are any more relevant than the other in the eyes of the person you're debating with.

I disagree... religion is a faith not a theory... a theory and faith are similar but not the same. you follow a faith, its more like a lifestyle, its not a theory. you'll never see people that belive in evolution or gravity for example saying things like dont steal, comit murder, comit adultry, partake in magic tricks, fortune telling, sex before marriage, masturbation etc.

believeing in a theory doesnt have conditions, beliveing in a faith does.