You have said your methodology consists of merely picking and choosing what to believe regardless of the data behind something. Well, guess what? I have a viewpoint that says 1+1=3 just like you might have a viewpoint where evolution is not real. If we go by your methodology, I can reject all data and believe 1+1=3, but that does not mean that is what should be taught in schools or that I shouldn't get marked off for writing that on a test. That is my whole point.
you still don't understand my methodology, technically it is human methodology. I never suggested that evolution not be taught in schools I grow tired of repeating myself. This is human methodology, take human A, he wants to be in the academic world and holds being a student and observing and creating theories as the most important thing that man does. I am thrilled that there are people that do this, they are in the forefront of understanding humanity on a biological, chemical, and evolutionary basis, we need people that think this way, i cannot be among them, I appreciate physics and mathematics but the study of evolution and biology isn't for me.
Then you have person B, he grew up in a religious household and sure he understands that religion isn't academic and doesn't wish it to be. He devotees his life to serving the poor and unfortunate, the ones sick with things that the person As of the world haven't managed to figure out, he understands that medicine is the fruit of the toils of people who understand things which he doesn't. And in the mean time if he shows kindness to to people that are suffering, not because he fears his God but because he sees his God in the people he cares for. His belief in things that aren't scientific makes him better at that than sometime who doesn't see.
To me at least these two extreme ends of the spectrum are both very important and to use academia to stomp out person B's motivation is wrong, it is to negate humanity for the satisfaction of being right.
Oddly enough the methodology of both person A and person B is the same, they just have differing goals. They choose what to accept as fact based on what the accepted fact is in their respective social professional realms, it isn't wrong it is right.
I fall in the person C category, I don't like it, I wish I could be one so convicted to his beliefs. This is the philosopher, my methodology is that methodology is pointless because there its no fact no truth just what is and how we interpret it, I did very poorly in college because I continually questioned why facts were facts and viewed people that accepted them as facts as lazy, but later I realized it was smart not lazy, to simply accept something makes it easier to apply that to a principle or a conclusion. This means I am a fantastic business man, but my first love of physics was out of my reach, I questioned the language too much. But I am happy, I feel that I am successful.
Certain aspects of organized religion- yes. And I was raised a religious kid, so spare me the "you don't understand religion" stuff- my grandmother who played an integral role in raising me is quite religious. In general though, scientists are probably the most questioning of any group in the world and religion probably the opposite- you are expected to blindly believe old scriptures written by humans. At the end of the day, I see this pushback on evolution as very similar to the pushback the Church tried with regards to Copernicus and Earth's position in the universe- eventually they gave in there when they realized they were living a lie and the creationists will probably do that here too- it is just a matter of when. Until then the backwards ideologues will keep blabbing and I will stand for scientific progress and data and push back when they try to change the schools which my children will attend for the worse. Think evolution is in fact false or that creationism has enough data to suggest its validity on a fact-based science test? Show me the data.
You really don't understand religion, I know monks, monks that completely accept evolution. They understand and agree that scripture was written by man. And that it isn't infallible. One in particular that remains devout in his service to his fellow man that even thinks that scripture isn't the word of God, but the word of man about God.
You confuse religion with the justification people use to to hate things, simply following man made rules is easier than taking things on faith. So many Christians muslims and Jews give up their inquisitive nature, one that is celebrated and encouraged in all three religious books of the respective religions afore mentioned, then you have Buddhism and Hinduism that do not have strict rules created by its members to outcast those that don't belong, all are literally welcome.
also religion will not be pushed away, it will simply evolve as it always does, catholic church survived the copernicus business and grew to accept his discovery, you expect them to be completely supportive of science, yet you repeatedly say that they don't belong in the classroom. You don't seek religion for mundane science just like you don't go to school for spiritual enlightenment. But both are necessary.
I also do not think for one minuet that the religion side its absolutely right in this, they silk kick and scream and resist completely until it is put to this point, accept this science or fall in to obscurity of history like alchemy and phenology did, like a spills child they grudgingly accept what they must to continue their existence.
