Francisco Ayala in the most recent edition of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science makes a good distinction between religion and science (italics mine):
Science and religion concern different aspects of the human experience. Scientific explanations are based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world and rely exclusively on natural processes to account for natural phenomena. Scientific explanations are subject to empirical tests by means of observation and experimentation and are subject to the possibility of modification and rejection. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical tests and is not subject to the possibility of rejection based on empirical evidence. The significance and purpose of the world and human life, as well as issues concerning moral and religious values, are of great importance to many people, perhaps a majority of humans, but these are matters that transcend science.
If it will make some readers happy, the italicized part doesn't preclude the idea that 'religion' is stupid. But this is a very accurate and useful distinction if you want evolution taught in schools.
More like this
Here's one from the vault. But not our vault. It's an all-time favorite of mine, from McSweeney's a few years ago, written by Joshua Tyree: "On the Implausibility of the Death Star's Trash Compactor." Lets file it under physics. For example:
At my other weblog, two reviews of books on Eurasia. First, Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present.
But they did not call it that then.
There is no god, never was never will be. Re-incarnation occurs at about 50% at best. Bad Karma is a phobia. And so it goes. Peace.