With reference to the article Of Science, God and Santa Claus , I have a different interpretation to the writer's understanding of the statement "It is simply not science," as "Perhaps he meant that religious accounts of the origin of the universe and of man are not scientific, and therefore, not true".

My interpretation is "Perhaps he meant that religious accounts of the origin of the universe and of man are not scientific, and therefore, should not be taught as science". That is, in a science lesson, then one is obliged to teach "science", that is knowledge as gathered under accepted scientific principles and not theology.

There is no harm in learning about religious beliefs as the writer said except when they masquerade as something else, eg, science. If that happens, children would become confused. Surely, you wouldn't be teaching a child maths during geography lessons and insisting that what is being taught is geography, right?

Both the Big Bang and Darwin's Theory of Evolution are accepted as the "best", or most plausible, explanations for the universe as we know it today. Scientists accept that these theories are imperfect, and are not necessarily correct (or true). However, until a better theory is advanced, we will accept that these two are the most likely explanations for what we can observe.

So, really, there may be a god or gods out there who designed and created the universe, but based on current scientific thinking, that is less likely than the Big Bang theory. Of course, less likely does not mean impossible.

In conclusion, what we are asking for is the proper segregation of the subject matter, namely theology should be taught during theology classes and not during science classes just like maths should be taught during maths classes and not during geography classes as geography.

Every individual can then decide for themself after learning about all these different systems of beliefs (or myths as the writer called them). They can also choose which to subscribe to, and how to reconcile any differences in their own mind. After all, that is what faith is all about isn't it - to believe in something that cannot be proven?