Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Specifically, scientists.Sure. If creationists could show that they were right, their position should be taught and evolution shouldn't. It would certainly pass the Lemon Test, since there would obviously be a secular purpose in teaching something which had been proved to be true. Again, let's leave that one up to scientists, shall we? And if someone could produce another theory with the same predictions it would be worthy of consideration.---I shall overlook your mere errors of fact for now because the thousandth time one hears them they are not particularly interesting.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If unsupported assertion was a substitute for evidence creationists would have carried their point a long time ago. On the whole when it comes to science I prefer that peculiar form of "blindness" which consists of knowing about science over the more conventional form of "blindness" which involves knowing damn-all about it. Predictions ... mean nothing?Once more I am happy that science is in the hands of scientists and not those of your good self. Well, quite. This is most amusing. But how else are we to test a hypothesis? I've done that. No evidence.

Having read your posts on other threads I too am coming round to the idea that you are a prankster (a "Poe", as we call it). No-one can be so thoroughly stupid about all the subjects that you're wrong about. I think you're just winding us up.

Also, Newton didn't believe in the planet Neptune. But he had no occasion to do so.I can't find any quotes from Pasteur against evolution even looking at creationist apologetics resources. If you can, please produce them. A distinction they share with the "theory" that Thor causes lightning rather than electricity, and that witches cause disease rather than germs, and that there are four elements rather than the larger array set out in the periodic table, and that the Earth is stationary rather than in motion, and that earthquakes are caused by the periodic twitching of the gigantic frog that carries the Earth on its back rather than plate tectonics. Um ... you made that up, remember? Along with similar nonsense about Peking Man? This is clearly not the case, because it was the "scientific establishment" that considered, and then proved, the alternative that Piltdown Man was a hoax.But yes, we concede that scientists sometimes make mistakes. But the thing is, creationists never do anything else. (1) They do not say that "Lyell invented his theory of Uniformitarianism" because he didn't.(2) Lyell was a theist when he published his Principles of Geology.(3) Christian scientists did in fact debunk catastrophism --- even if you don't count Lyell as Christian, one man does not a scientific movement make. Indeed, Christian geologists are still jumping up and down on catastrophism's twitching corpse.(4) This controversy was indeed largely resolved before Darwin published. Because after sufficient genetic divergence, organisms are unable to interbreed. What utter garbage. Try actually reading chapter IX of the Origin of Species. The lack of transitions is something creationists made up; and the stasis is entirely compatible with the theory, as Darwin was the first to point out. You can also arguably consider the Earth to be flat. Your ability to consider things is of remarkably little relevance.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But using that same definition, teaching math is also a religion. Its an interest which is very important to mathematicians. Teaching people how to speak Spanish is a religious activity, that's an activity that is very important to people who are monolingual in Spanish. The law of conservation of energy is very important to the group known as "physicists". American history is important to Americans. And so on ... It doesn't, I checked. No religious opinions should be taught in public schools. This is why biology textbooks don't actually contain the claim that there is no afterlife.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh, it's a creationist device for avoiding reality. Basically, if you've actually seen something happen, it's "observational science". If you haven't seen it happen, then one opinion about whether it happened is just as good as another, no matter what the evidence is, 'cos that's not "observational science".This way, creationists don't have to be wrong about the significance of all the evidence for evolution bit by bit, but instead at a single stroke they can be wrong about whether it has any significance at all. This relieves them of having to actually look at the evidence, which would involve effort and which might end in them realizing that creationism is bollocks.You will note that this epistemological view, if applied consistently, would make the people who held it incompetent to function in the real world. Fortunately for them, intellectual consistency is not one of their virtues.

I am reporting on the maneuvers I've seen creationists actually carry out when prating about "observational science". It's difficult to describe their practices accurately without sounding a little negative. If I wanted to be positive about their antics, I could have written "Creationists are such wise clever people with some really excellent ideas about epistemology" ... but that wouldn't actually be true. Yes, scientists have found out such a lot of interesting things. Some of this knowledge has even trickled down to creationists eventually. But daydreaming about what new evidence they "might" find is somewhat removed from anything that deserves the name "observational".

If you can get life from elements with faith, I should like to see a demonstration. No-one is offended by stuff you've made up. Amused, yes. Considering which, it's really unfair that they get the Nobel Prizes, while your genius goes unrecognized. What with them being unfit for the rigors of science, and you knowing so much better than them, you deserve more credit for your wonderful discoveries. Can you remind us what they were? This is barely written in English and has no apparent meaning.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How about I tell you what I think, and you concentrate on telling us what you think. That way you'll lie less often. Then I have some bad news for you ... Again I would urge you not to lie to me about what I'm thinking. If moral considerations don't dissuade you from doing so, consider the fact that you are certain to get caught.

Whereas complexity in biology apparently doesn't. For example, a sycamore tree is complex, and is produced by two other sycamore trees reproducing: no design takes place, no intelligence is applied. This is another of those sentences you might want to have another run at.

Well, this, for example. It happens on a short enough scale for us to observe, and involves the production of a new metabolic function by the evolution of a new operon.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Different species have different genes. Otherwise they'd be the same species. This is caused by a process called "mutation" which you would doubtless have heard of if you had been paying attention in science class. You might want to stop using the word "discrepancy" until you find out what it means.

Er, no.It's not even written in the same language throughout. It's not written in the same style. It doesn't use the same names for God. It's full of inconsistencies. Cohesive? It's barely coherent.

But creationist arguments are flatly opposed to scientific knowledge. How is a teacher meant to teach both sides "without conflict"?For example, consider the creationist claim that there are no beneficial mutations. But there are. So the teacher says ... what? "There are no beneficial mutations, yes there are". Then a kid raises his hand ... "Please, Miss, which of those mutually contradictory statements is true?" And the teacher has to say "The second one".Or "The second law of thermodynamics says that evolution is impossible no it doesn't." ... "Archaeopteryx is a completely modern bird no it isn't" ... "The theory of evolution says everything happened by random chance no it doesn't" ... and so forth. And each time the students are going to ask which is true and learn that the creationists are talking nonsense.So how is creationism to be taught? What does the "smart educator" teach?

Creationists, eh?We don't expect them to have degrees in biology. Or anything else. Our standards are not high. We ask for so little. But we always get even less.