Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

I went to a catholic school that wasn't dogmatic like my parents.
We got shown evolution as well as other religions which is insightful and helps in accepting culture and ancient literature instead of opposing everyone with a different view
They never really said this is the one truth which is clever considering no one really has all the answers.Definitely think this trend of athiest biologists in universities is unhealthy because the athiest conclusion is not scientific based but just to oppose religion. And the way of thinking coming in from the social department left is "feelings over facts" which is frightening but explains so much in society and what i see in campus. Its a poison that educes hate. We cannot even have a civilized discourse like the ppl b4 us. Its like the Jerry Springer show. Fucked up. They want to introduce a "safe space". A stupid idea from America. If a student is "offended" by another opinion they can leave the room for this "safe "space" like wtf stop treating us like glass babies.U know this society ive grown up in has always discouraged me of all masculine thought or actions. I always resisted and was always punished. And for what? Why have i been spoon fed this idea that im inherently criminal for the media, women and mostly my sister. My original thought was that its a load of crap. Well I finally asked wat the noise was about. Spent 6 weeks probing this issue from ever angle. Reading info, listening to scholars, men, women, gays. U know objective thinking is alive still in engineering but i dont see it anywhere else.Anyway my conclusion shook me so profoundly. Its all based on "feelings over facts" which boggles my mind and really confuses young men like myself. I know i want to be a mechanical engineer. Apart from that i don't know where im going. Its disconcerting. My role in a hetrosexual relationship is very unclear but any feminists will only be used for sex, nothing more. Though I think a written consent may be required once iv got some money. Gone are the days of chivalrous gentlemen. Enter men who have been indoctrinated to be more feminine. Now there making boys play with dollsCan anyone shed some light of this femimist movement of social justice warriors. Im raw to social politics. I see its coming from America. Bad influence u guys.. lolDamn i wrote way too much leaving me exposed to the typical tactics of the extreme athiest left. oh well its written now... lolEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Ye parents r full on.
ToE was taught in science. The main western and eastern religions wer taught in Religion class just as u describe it I'd say it was rational and healthy. Not too sure about public schools and religion but that's another conversation

"By definition it cannot work with supernatural processes"
I'm not sure which definition u mean.
Science definition doesn't give us the liberty of dismissing God.
Neither does the definition of agnostic
For me I'm not trying to win an argument or convert anyone. I don't feel the need to produce evidence to anybody but myself. I just need to convince myself. The methods and procedures we apply in the engineering subjects use a different method to Biology which is stricter. We cannot afford to go down any path without certain evidence witch is always confirmed mathematically. So it will always be harder for me to accept the levels of evidence biology does.
Example OK the reptile that is morphing onto a bird Annterixp or something right.
Its fair to say it is evidence supporting evolution through different species.
However it has to also be said that there is a greater chance it is just from an extinct species. I feel ToE is a solid theory in its late stages. But it's looses it's track at the dawn of primates and gets much weaker before the dinosaursDiest. That's new to me so excuse me pls.
OK so u allow the possibility of a creation, God or otherwise at the conception of time and space. But don't believe their was any further intervention in wer ToE did its job.
If my interpretation is correct then I understand it. So NO Jesus ye fair position I'd say.
Though I haven't thought about it deeply enough yet my first thought... actually is dismissed my my second... lol... I'll think about thatBut... My mind has been in this rabbit hole for 6 weeks. Was never really interested in politics and social issues. But wen I take a position I find important I really probe it from every angle. I read, think, listen, think, watch, think from every angle right or left. I can never reach a 100% conclusion to the issues I want to find truth in like religion and ToE. I'm always left with my most probable hypothesis. LoL. My standards of proof hold me back from forming more definitive conclusions but I accept that.
The feminists, lesbians, trannies are radical left man. Trump is right. I won't use Demo or Reb because Aussie politics don't have them answer so is easy to confuse. But those fat bitches u see on TV screaming and shaking the earth with feminine rage. It's left wing weather it's America, UK or here. Right is "conservative" which is a term that applies here and there I think. Anyway I'm sure wer talking about the same group. There's only one radical group... Never thought I'd uncover as much as I have so far and I keep finding shocking stuff. I'm still a long way from conclusion but what I'm finding is fascinating and has really negative effects on humanity. I better stop before I write another book here... The people im listening to are like psychologists and social studies professors from subjects I considered to be boring 3 months ago. The search for knowledge is far from easy but it is truly empowering if u never reach that definitive truth. All my positions none of them are fixed and can change with new knowleage I may find.
Hehehe u can't talk about this kind of stuff in a paragraph.
I'll see a 3 hour lecture and think wwooa that's long. But I before I know it wer done if it's provoking thought 3 hours will fly by
Anyways cheers Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

I just thought about Diest a bit more a read its very convoluted definition again.If my earlier interpretation is correct I kind of like where it sits.
Because I "feel" I don't like that word too much but I'm forming the most probable hypothesis not definitive truth so it OK.I was thinking since I jumped on here that there is some truth in both. With religion perhaps just the 1st fundamental belief of a creator. With evolution the human evolved from other primates is likely. Or evolution within animal types. Micro macro I get em mixed up. I'm no sold on inter animal type evolution or the footpath (sidewalk) all the way back to the seas and a single cell. I'm satisfied to leave that part in the middle to be unknown. I think that's healthy and don't like it wen people push it to be certain fact. I find it very celf centered to claim you know it all which I heard from both sides to some degree. I kind of believe we will never learn the whole truth. Not in our life time. We haven't even grasped the size of the universe or the reason why it even existsEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

I was asked that same question by a christian. And my answer is the same.Something that is explained well dosen't neccessarily make it true

True... The truth, will anyone ever know? Not in our lifetimeCos im doing engineering its all black and white. Mathematics confirms nearly everything for us and we cannot proceed to the next step unless we're absolutely know its correct cos its being applied. U know wat i mean.My doubts lie in Atheist Biology. All the big wigs are Atheist. They have this theory so, they look to try and confirm that theory. I don't like that approach. Cherry pick the data that fits and discard the rest.And these big wigs like Dawkins go around doing lectures on bashing religion. Why. Your a scientist. Stop entertaining the religious folk. Just talk science only. It looks sussThen in an interview I heard him admit the possibility of extraterrestrial creation. Like WTF. How can I believe this guy. Unless there is a logic i can't see. If one type of creation is possible then wouldn't all types of creation be possible?Accepting Dawkins rhetoric is impossible given how hard it is to convince me of anything. LoL. I don't trust him. Thats why I have little faith in the theoryEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

RAZD u said
"That's hardly a valid reason to throw out the whole field"Never said i threw out the whole field. In fact I told u that I think the ToE of humans is quite probable. I thought u were more reasonable than thatAnd Tanypteryx argues "CREATIONIST". Hehehe classicI'll try again to lay out my points on why Dawkins comes across as suspicious to me from an agnostics perspectiveThis is the part of the interview in question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ81- The atheist position is one of choice not scientific.
2- His written heaps of books and spent hours on lectures exclusively on religion
3- His allowance for possible alien creation while refusing to entertain any possibility of a deity creation
4- His inability to articulate a scientific explanation
5- His admission that we just don't knowSurely u can see how at least one of these points draws suspicionEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

I haven't got the time to lay down an argument to people who lack the reasoning of viewing things from an Agnostics perspective.Dogma
/ˈdɒɡmə/
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the dogmas of faith"Bon dia