Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Indeed, and when it comes to public school science classes, the emphasis should be on processes that can be defined simply, and observed in action: such as the classic Peppered Moths demonstrate the simplicity of natural selection (first for dark moths and then for light moths). Certainly a case can be made for genetic drift being a major source of change when selection pressure is small or non-existent (a stasis ecology).And sexual selection can operate at a faster time scale than natural selection, especially if you get to Fisherian runaway sexual selection. The idea of creationism could be introduced as a means of demonstrating why scientific hypothesis need to be testable and make predictions to qualify as science and why science doesn't address questions that cannot be tested.Creationism can also be taught in a comparative religion humanities type class, comparing the creation myths from multiple various cultures. It could be a "fair and balanced" class discussing the pros and cons of different religions ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Theories are part of knowledge. Teaching without them is like teaching history with just the dates things happened. Which is what happens without theories. Agreed. All one need to is suggest other religions be taught to the same extent christianity is and the howling begins about a war on christianity. ... survivalists, able to find niches even in urban areas. Of course wolves suppress them, but when we eliminate wolves the coyotes take over their terrain.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Are you confused?Can you describe the steps involved with the Scientific Method?Or will we get another slew of non-relevant answers bedded in insults?Enjoy

Once again we have no description of what the scientific method involves, the steps and procedures, etc etc etcJust more spam.This is not an answer to the question "What is the scientific method, according to you?" -- it is non-sequitur GIGO...Once again you fail, you lose. Perhaps you could extract from those rambling posts where you addressed what steps make up the scientific method?I did a search for "scientific method" and the only reference I saw was in Message 81 where we see:

quote:

---

Spiritality is testable, as I mentioned. Jesus is testable as I mentioned, the invisable can be tested.

​

And evolution can not be tested, only theorised. You can try to make new artistic graphs, and suggest bone A fits into Bone B, but suggestions and quesses are not proofs.

​

But I must give you a chance, please show your test results..... of evolutionists trying to support other evolutionists.

​

Did you test my exact methods in finding out truths about the invisable spiritual world, using the experimental scientific method I gave, so you can KNOW for sure...from personal experience.

---

color added for emphasis.And yet all I have seen on that thread is reference to testing. Testing is only one part of the scientific method - can you list the other steps?Perhaps you can discuss this "experimental scientific method" in greater detail?Another snippet you mentioned was in Message 2

quote:

---

Yes, true scientists test and prove their theories.

​

True scientists find truths and laws.

​

True scientists are not swayed by their peers or the belief systems of others, they have open minds and hearts, and just search until they find truths.

​

And besides all truths have to be connected and joined, no truth stands alone, but leads to other truths.

---

Is that what you think the "experimental scientific method" is?Can you provide details for how scientists prove their theories?This is an excellent thread for you to expand on these issues and describe in detail how it is done, so we can agree on what is taught in schools.So far you have missed the mark by a considerable margin, nothing but air.Enjoy

Curiously I got slightly different results from paleos, and your link also now shows chiroptera under Laurasiatheria, not Archonta, while primates are under the sister branch, Euarchontaglires.See Message 99 on A good summary of so called human evolution.Enjoy

Or mainly that the method does not cover any mythology, imagination or fantasy concept, simply because those are not scientific concepts, and there is no objective empirical evidence for them.This is one of the core reasons to separate school from religion.Religion is free to teach their concepts in their institutions.School is for teaching students how to find information, how to process information logically, and how to use science to validate and expand our knowledge.Enjoy

Curiously I have no trouble distinguishing science from religion. It seems only science ignorant creationists have trouble with this, because all they know is religion and religious dogma indoctrination.Science, is based on evidence, using hypothesis\theory to make predictions and then test them.

quote:

---

The study of abiogenesis can be geophysical, chemical, or biological,[14] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three,[15] as life arose under conditions that are strikingly different from those on Earth today. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and is largely based upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (fatty cell walls), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (self-replicating DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.[16] Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. It is generally thought that current life on Earth is descended from an RNA world,[17] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[18][19]

---

This science is still in it's infancy compared to other sciences, and there are several hypothesis\theory undergoing testing, however it is clear from the sentence hi-lighted in orange, that it is attempting to explain the evidence that exists of how life began on earth.Religion, on the other hand, is based on belief without evidence.

quote:

---

There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide,[9] but about 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion.[10] The religiously unaffiliated demographic includes those who do not identify with any particular religion, atheists and agnostics. While the religiously unaffiliated have grown globally, many of the religiously unaffiliated still have various religious beliefs.[11]

​

Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence; and religions include revelation, faith and sacredness whilst also acknowledging philosophical and metaphysical explanations with regard to the study of the universe ...

---

Science is not founded on belief, religion is. Religion is not founded on evidence, science is.Another teachable moment.Enjoy

Wasn't one of the tests that validated relativity the bending of light from a distant start around a massive object?

quote:

---

Tests of general relativity serve to establish observational evidence for the theory of general relativity. The first three tests, proposed by Einstein in 1915, concerned the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the bending of light in gravitational fields, and the gravitational redshift. The precession of Mercury was already known; experiments showing light bending in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919, with increasing precision measurements done in subsequent tests, and astrophysical measurement of the gravitational redshift was claimed to be measured in 1925, although measurements sensitive enough to actually confirm the theory were not done until 1954. A program of more accurate tests starting in 1959 tested the various predictions of general relativity with a further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.

---

When everything behaves the way the theory predicted, we have strong validation that the theory is correct and certainly a better explanation than Newton's Law of Gravity (which failed to account for Mercury's precession).And once again, if the effects of 'creation's' mind game are undetectable, occam's razor says it is ignorable -- until such time as there is evidence, detectable evidence, of the (whatever it is) has been found or presented.Because that is how science deals with such fantasies and unevidenced claims.Enjoy

please don't call denial skepticism.

This is a thread about what should be taught in school, so let's try a little exercise in critical thinking: Assertion: The "fishbowl" does not exist.Refute.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Moving the goal posts already ... the post you are replying to states So the "fishbowl" is purely a philosophical concept, one that is fairly useless to what one should teach in school as "the limits of where man has gone" is changing daily.If not, please demonstrate that the "fishbowl" actually exists. Please do so; your posited "fishbowl" changes daily, showing that "the limits of where man has gone" is not actually limited.Enjoy

Fixed it for you.A sound basis in geography and history. That's a start.Let's also add critical thinking and logic to better understand their basis in understanding reality.Then we can add what science actually is and does (or doesn't do), how it works, not by belief, but by building on known facts, making hypothesis and how testing them shows a lack of belief in their validity. How hypothesis become theory and how theories are changed when new facts are discovered.We can talk about religion and how comparative religion shows similarities and differences between different beliefs. Then we can question if there is any means to test which religions are {better / closer to truth / valid} -- your basic "how do you know" question fundamental to a good education. This is your problem with religious beliefs being anti-science -- you need to deny the validity of science. Sorry, denial does not invalidate or obliterate science.Who cares? People who want to learn and know more.Who doesn't care? People who want to curl up with ignorance so they can maintain delusional (ie - contradicted by facts) beliefs. Creationists, for instance.We can teach about that too -- how the denial of the the reality around us is not healthy thinking. Describe them yes indeed, that IS what the current scientific model of the universe does: it describes what we think is the best explanation of the universe. A model that has been modified many times over the years as new information is added, and a model subject to further modification as new information becomes available ... thru the discovery of new information by scientific procedures.We can teach how Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, by measuring an increased electron density, confirm a prediction made by the current model for interstellar space being different from the space within the solar system (which is affected by gravity and the solar winds from the sun).We can teach how the actual degree of density has not been measured yet, and whether or not that can affect the current model, should it be different in degree than what is predicted. If it is different, then the model will be adjusted as necessary or a new mode will be developed.We can teach that this is how science works -- building on known facts to provide the best possible explanation for things, whether it's biology (evolution), geology (the natural history of continental plates, mountain building, erosion, etc over geological ages), climate (anthropomorphic climate change), physics (the model of the universe, radioactive decay, etc).We can teach how religion claims to explain everything, but does not have any mechanism to increase knowledge. How there is a fundamental difference between religion and science: EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

Gibberish, we're still talking history and geography as a starting point.No sound basis for what? History and geography? That wouldn't be critical thinking would it? That would be teaching thinking to a prescribed agenda without allowing freedom of thought. Please provide one such example and then show who determined they failed and how they determined it. (Hint: it wasn't by religious belief). Claims are easy to make, can you substantiate them? We can agree that abiogenesis has not reached a definitive theory on the origins of life on this planet, at best we can say that before a certain time (say 4 billion years ago) there is no evidence, that after 3.5 billion years ago that there is plenty of evidence of (single cell) life, that the actual point of life's origin is not known, nor is the actual process. We can say that there are a number of different hypothesis, but no conclusion yet. (see see Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for some of the active avenues of research). Certainly there is room for discussion. Why? What would give your Christianity any authority on what is right and what is wrong when talking about history and geography or how science works? What gives Christianity that privilege when the place to teach religion is the home and the church?That would not be critical thinking would it? That would be teaching thinking to a prescribed agenda without allowing freedom of thought.You would force non-Christians to accept your beliefs over their own, rather than keep an open mind.Would it be equally valid for a nation with Hindu foundations and/or a Hindu majority to have the same control over what is taught? Wrong, there is plenty of evidence that has resulted in the current model of the universe. Perhaps if you actually looked into the matter instead of blanket denial of it you would know better. Assertions are not evidence or invalidation, it's just opinion. Agreed. Now how do you determine which are "demented evil delusions" and which are real? Answer: test them, compare the evidence for them, use critical thinking and an open mind. Indeed. The question is how we determine which are "vile made up dreams and fables" and which are based on reality. Assertions are not sufficient, popularity (a logical fallacy) is not sufficient, opinion is not sufficient, belief is not sufficient.Facts and evidence are a good starting point. Certainly any belief that is contradicted by evidence should not be considered as valid.Building from that basis, any belief that is not contradicted and that hold across a broad spectrum of religions and beliefs can be considered with an open mind. This would best be accomplished through a Comparative Religions course, comparing beliefs not just between one religion and another, but between one sect and another (eg - there are many -- a majority of? -- Christian sects that do not see a young earth or a world wide flood as factual, but as allegorical, ... and of course there are many religions with no such beliefs). Denial is not refutation, opinion is not refutation, and invoking a personal fantasy is most certainly not a refutation of the scientific evidence, process, predictions and testing. Beliefs are not tested for invalidation, science is, because science questions all answers, even (if not most particularly) the scientific ones.Questioning all answers is the essence of critical thinking. The electron density already is different, the next question is how different will it get the further Voyager 1 and 2 penetrate the interstellar medium beyond the heliopause, and how does that compare to the predicted values.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Hi Mike That's my point, MIke: at 4 billion years no life but at 3.5 billion years life. We don't know what happened in between. OR a supernatural process (or panspermia?). We don't know.Enjoy

Which god/s? Does history change depending on which religion you believe, which country you are living in?Does China have a different history -- where no world wide floods are mentioned and a different view of the age of the earth -- because they have/had different god/s?Actual history cannot be understood in any depth without evidence. You do not have to agree.Troy was thought to be mythological until evidence was found for it. And that is why we have freedom of religion - for anyone to believe what they want to - here in the US.There is also no freedom of thought when someone's "faith in God and truth is religiously" imposed on others. What I asked for was "Please provide one such example and then show who determined they failed and how they determined it. (Hint: it wasn't by religious belief). Claims are easy to make, can you substantiate them?"Curiously, all you have provided is another in a long list of scientific hypothesis/theory where further evidence showed the hypothesis/theory to be invalid, so it was discarded. This is how science works -- it isn't a failing of science, it is the strength of science, and it is why science is not a belief based system. Science found the error, not religious belief, and science then corrected the hypothesis/theory ... something you never see with religious beliefs. Your lack of understanding of what science is and does leads you to silly conclusions. And assertions of denial are not any argument or evidence to invalidate the science. The only one you are fooling is yourself. You cannot test anything with science when there is no evidence. Science builds a model (an approximation of reality) based on what it knows, making hypothesis/theory to further explain it, making predictions to test those hypothesis/theories to validate or invalidate them, and by removing hypothesis/theory that are invalid improve the model (approximation of reality).Curiously it does not matter how little we know, what matters is that the evidence supports what we know, that science in toto is internally consistent and able to build, test and find new information. Religion and faith based beliefs don't do that, because they think they know the answers. Says the person trying to impose his religious beliefs on science and education. If the actual interstellar medium electron density matches the predicted values, then that will validate the current space-time model of the universe.If the actual interstellar medium electron density differs from the predicted values, then that will mean the current space-time model of the universe needs to be adjusted, modified or discarded.Enjoy