Hi mram10! Welcome to the forums, I hope you find lots of stuff to talk about.
Let's focus on the last definition.
Why? Just because it can be twisted to slightly support the point you're trying to make? Okay, we'll go with it.
quote:
religion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Gotcha.
Teaching evolution is, in my opinion, teaching religion.
Yes, according to this definition, anyway.
Of course, according to this same definition, the following are all "religions" as well:
-recreational slo-pitch
-Nintendo
-lowering your car chassis
-smoking cigars
-growing your toenails
Are you sure you want to say that each of these "very important to a person or group" items is
on par with your religion?
I don't have a religion myself, but if I did, I'd find that sort of lowering-of-the-bar a bit counter-productive and possibly even insulting.
As for ID or creationism, if it has a valid description of origins, then people should be made aware of the differing theories.
Absolutely correct.
Too bad it doesn't have a valid description of origins...
Common sense question:
Which is the safer teaching?
1. You are a chemical/biological accident. Upon death you will decompose and cease to exist as an individual.
2. You are a created for a purpose, held accountable for everything you do, etc.
If you're created for a purpose... you are held
less accountable for everything you do, etc... you are held less accountable because some of the responsibility will be on the one who created you for whatever purpose they had in mind.
If you are not created for a purpose... then you are held
more accountable for everything you do, etc. Because, well, who else would be accountable?
So common sense would tell us: 1.