Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

You really need to read actually history. Not believe the fantasies in your head. The pope had no power in France prior to the revolution. The catholic church in France was in many ways independent of the Vatican. The king basically led the church in France.Please provide evidence of this swing of the whole country into atheism.

You would, but at which point is up to date true, when by its own claims is saying that it has to be flexible to change with new evidence?You could teach whatever you want but you would not be allowed to test anyone on it, or fail them because it may all be proven false in the future.
The idea of progressive knowledge is like a boat without a rudder.At least with creationism you already have an established base, which does not change, it is only discovered in more detail.

7 of the European countries did not have the Pope as King, but each had their own, which were subservient to the Vatican.
The Catholic Church of Rome, was and is the Vatican, was and is the Papacy.

When I took my driver's test right-turn-on-red was against the law, but they tested me on the current state of the law, and somehow, amazingly, when the law changed it wasn't a problem. When I took English the word "Internet" didn't even exist, yet it somehow wasn't a problem.Science is just like all other subjects taught in school - it isn't fixed. The current state of scientific knowledge evolves over time, so we teach and test students on the current state of scientific knowledge and let them learn new developments as they happen, just as with all other subjects.Have there been any significant changes in scientific views that have occurred in your lifetime that you think pose a problem for science education? One significant change was the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating instead of decelerating, and that there's something causing the acceleration that we've given the name dark energy. Do you see it as a problem that as a student you were taught the expansion of the universe was decelerating and that later you learned it was actually accelerating. Creationist views *do* change, different creationist groups have different views (such as on the age of the earth), its views aren't supported by the evidence, many of its views are contradicted by the evidence, and it isn't science but religion and so would be unconstitutional. Other than that I can't think of any reasons why it would be inappropriate to teach creationism in science class.--Percy

Bullshit. Read some history. You might find out that some of those states actually fought wars against the popes. Very few popes have wielded any true temporal power. The French catholic church was controlled by the kings. Many had a very contentious relationship with the Vatican.Unless you have evidence for your premise of course. I know a few historians that would love to see your evidence of the popes control of Europe.Also I amwaiting for you to show how France became an atheistic state after the revolutionEdited by Theodoric, : Oops typosEdited by Theodoric, : Typing in deer stand. Need to proof better. Phone autocorrect sucks

We agree that whether the universe is expanding or not, will not make a lot of difference which way you get out of bed. So there's an impractical theoretical side of science as well as an applied science which is the only one students should be tested on.
Evolution theory has 'proven evidence' to some people but not half of America, which have evidence against it. So the evidence depends on a persons view or opinion, which as far as you have pointed out is of no consequence, and yet in real life it is so important that there are opposing views in the same world.To say that creationists are all deluded is self condemning, since half of the US believe in it.I believe there is truth and method in both camps, as well as error in both camps.

I am surprised that I would find someone with your opinion on that. You will have to do your own research, because of bigotry and bias on the history of the Vatican. My sources are considered unfair to the Papacy which murdered over 60 million during the dark ages, and has been removing such facts from history records for centuries.

Lol. Are you freaking serious? The great Vatican conspiracy. You refuse to provide a source? So no confidence I guess. History has sources. Original sources.
If no original sources it is fiction.
As most if the world is not Catholic how can they remove things from history books?

You're obviously struggling with the terminology. First there's your use of the word "impractical". Things which make no difference to which way we get out of bed are not impractical. Using a spoon to dig a swimming pool would be impractical. Using a micrometer to measure the distance between New York and San Francisco would be impractical. But there's nothing impractical about the accelerating expansion of the universe. It's just a fact of the natural world. I think all you meant to say was that it isn't useful in day-to-day life.You're also misapplying the term "applied science" when you assume that the accelerating expansion of the universe is not an example of applied science. It is very much applied science, not theoretical science, though theory is consistent with observation in this case. No, half of America does not have evidence against evolution. They might reject the theory of evolution, but they have no evidence against it. They might believe they have evidence against it, but they don't. What people believe for spiritual reasons has nothing to do with science, which studies the real world. No, it really doesn't. Evidence can be ignored or rejected, something creationists frequently do, but the that doesn't make the evidence go away or disappear. Creationist behavior speaks for itself. Creationism has a method? That has something to do with science?If as part of your argument for including creationism in science class you want to present the method used by creationism then please proceed forthwith.--Percy

Science does not claim to TRVTH, Trvth, or even truth. For example, a scientific theory can be seen as the current best explanation, having been tested and having made successful predictions, for a given set of facts. False, and absolute nonsense besides. Also false. Getting closer and closer to an answer, guided by evidence, the scientific method, and improving theories is not "like a boat without a rudder." Quite the opposite. With creationism you have a bunch of answers made up by shamans and other ne'er-do-wells in the distant past, for which there is no evidence, and many of which have been shown to be false.

Well no, they do not have any evidence against evolution.Sorry but them's the facts. Well fortunately no one says that, Creationists are willfully ignorant or lying or delusional. Of course any Creation scientists are simply lying.

Sense of smell is subjective. Hold your nose.

To Percy and Coyote,
Are these posts of yours, your opinion or a reflection of other opinions.If they are your opinions, they don't, in your scientific system, have any value without peer reviewed evidence.
However, if you are just reflectors of other men's thoughts, then that speaks for itself as intellectual codependency.What you are saying is that because I disagree on certain points which you deem to be right, because it has been peer reviewed and accepted on a grand scale, that I must be wrong.But your opinion does not count, and neither are you in a peer reviewing board that represents global science. Unless you have been chosen to represent or speak for the board?Your system demands accountability to which you must hold to, otherwise you are being hypocrites for asking me to back up anything, which I don't have to in my world, because a person's intelligence actually counts, whereas in yours, you are answerable to an authority on knowledge. Does that sound like "all men are created equal" or communism?And that is what you want to keep in education? It's not compatible with Christian freedom is it?

Hi Colbard,I can back up everything I say with evidence, and I'm asking you to do the same. But instead of doing that you're just casting unsupported accusations full of references to things like communism, the Dark Ages and burning at the stake. And calling people hypocrites for asking you to support your claims with evidence is just beyond the pale.When you run out of on-topic things to say in a thread then it's time to do more research, not whatever it is you're doing.--Percy

A wonderfully trenchant critique of belief in the periodic table.