Originally Posted by
Photolysis
Except there's a difference: science works, and it can be proven to work. Try powering a plane on prayer and I'll show you a theist who'll shortly be digging his own grave at terminal velocity.
You can't compare a domain that is based upon evidence and that can be disproven to one that can not. Science and religion aren't even in the same ballpark.
Try this with other subjects, to see how absurd this idea is:
These subjects are not about beliefs. It's not a belief to teach "i before e except after c", to state that "Canada is a country north of the USA and located in North America", or to teach differentiation.
Science is not a set of beliefs. It is a domain of knowledge and a means of acquiring more of it. It is based around developing theories to explain observed facts. Saying e=mc^2 isn't a belief, it's an observed fact that can be backed up with countless man-hours of data. Saying evolution occurred isn't a belief, it's an observed fact backed up by many different things. The theory of evolution in turn attempts to explain the reasons behind these observed facts. This also isn't a belief, it's the best explanation that fits. If a better explanation comes along, or the theory is somehow disproven then it will be ditched.
Science is also self-correcting. The fastest way to become a recognised scientist is to disprove an existing established theory. Disprove Einstein's theory of relativity and you'll go down in history. It's impossible for a conspiracy to occur because of the testing built in to the process, and as I said, because of the incentives to correctly show an existing theory to be false.
Compare that to religion. A diverse set of beliefs all claiming to be the sole truth, yet all are mutually contradictory. In many cases the ideas are blatantly either self-contradictory, or contradictory with reality. They are self-serving, with no incentive to correct errors, or to change the status-quo unless they gain a benefit from doing so. Many of the ideas are impossible to test and rely on faith
Saying religion should be taught merely as an opposing viewpoint to science is as nonsensical as saying homeopathy should be taught as a counterpart to modern medicine.
I think religion should be discussed in schools, at an appropriate age, and from a neutral perspective. I think it should be discussed in a philosophical and sociological manner, and it should be compared to other worldviews and perspectives. For example, the philosophy of atheism/agnosticism/deism etc should also be discussed alongside religious beliefs. The nature of beliefs, evidence, and truth should also be discussed as well.
What should not happen is what happens in many schools in the Western world where children are essentially forced (or under immense peer pressure) to sing hymns, listen to the Bible and stories about Jesus, and so on, where it is being stated as if it is a fact. It's indoctrination, and it's reprehensible. It doesn't have an impact on all, but many people are vulnerable to it, and lack the strength of will and intellect to remain immune to it, and to make up their own minds objectively.