Be careful about confusing the noun(faith) with the transitive verb(faith). That leads to all kinds of misunderstanding.:)

When I went to school all those things WERE taught as theories, especially everything before monkeys. Has that changed?

The tricky part of that is not letting the tools become the experience. Shamen and other seekers and practitioners have used substances to obtain insight for millenia. However, if you start making the substance the thing rather than what you learn while using the substance, you are going to miss the goal.

As a recovering drunkard, I think I can speak of this with some certainty. It was only after I stopped drinking that I truly was able to absorb the lessons I learned while being loaded, because when I was a drunk, there was no persepective.

Strangely, not everything I learned from being drunk was bad, believe it or not.

That isn't rephrasing, that's redefining. That's using a definition that no scientist would recognise, let alone accept. But if we use that shorthand, then of course all of that isn't fact, as I stated before.

Evolution, the change of species over time, is an observed fact, verified experimentally.

Natural selection, or "bacterial and other microorganisms ... evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it" is a theory explaining an evolutionary process, not a fact, but is a theory based on available evidence.

Abiogenesis, or "creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured"creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured is likewise a theory. Experiments verify the aminos and enzymes, but no life has been experimentally created.

The big bang theory is also a theory. New data is always coming in, which causes the theory to be adjusted.

THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.

Nothing is provable in science. Only disprovable. And when I pointed out the distinction between evolution and natural selection in the other post, I stated that the natural selection part was not a fact. So obviously evolution + natural selection + abiogenesis + big bang is not a fact.
There's a difference between not believing in any god, and believing there is no God. The former implies no faith, the latter implies faith.

Webster:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

You speak of 2, b, 1 ? That makes it faith not religion.

Both are a belief, and therefore require faith. See webster post by Bruce.




Exactly. So if it's not a fact, why present it that way, TO THE EXCLUSION of every other possibility? Why not ALSO teach the creation theories of different religious belief systems as well?

Separation of church and state.

3 is different than 2b1 and 2b2 that's why it's not 2c1.

BTW, I have faith in Webster's but I don't worship it. It's not a religion.