Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Let's define religion:
religion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\: the belief in a god or in a group of gods: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or groupLet's focus on the last definition. Teaching evolution is, in my opinion, teaching religion. As for ID or creationism, if it has a valid description of origins, then people should be made aware of the differing theories.Common sense question:
Which is the safer teaching?
1. You are a chemical/biological accident. Upon death you will decompose and cease to exist as an individual.
2. You are a created for a purpose, held accountable for everything you do, etc.Edited by mram10, : No reason given.

This is going to be fun So far, I see the "science" here is the same as my professors and co-workers since. I was really hoping to find an unbiased site where new ideas are welcome.Most that argue against ID or a creation moment are ignorant to what work has been put into it and the logic behind it. I will not try to argue them to those close minded there-is-no-evidence-for-that types. For those with a truly scientific mind, I would love to learn from and debate the differing theories, rather than argue a flat earth for the rest of all time Sadly, I do not have time to respond to all of the replies aimed at me above, but have read them. Evolution requires faith, which those that are entrenched will not admit. Observational science is my comfort zone, thus I feel without observation, I am not comfortable putting blind trust in a theory. I look forward to those of you looking for true science. As for the others, your position is noted, but please feel free to keep the negative comments to yourself. I hope you know I am not being rude, I just do not have time to waste hearing the same bashing that is all over the internet to anyone not accepting of the TOE.

Prissie,
I am not Hitler
As for observational science, it is very complicated. It is science based on .... well.... observation Edited by mram10, : No reason given.

Coyote,
You are obviously the closed-minded type that is against "science".
The human body is complicated enough to warrant a look into "design". Life in general warrants a look into "design". THe universe is too perfect in my opinion to be a chance happening.
Observation is just a creation argument?? Not sure where you came up with that, but it is false. Observation is a building block of the scientific method. You think you have me "pegged" as a ....., and I obviously have you "pegged" as an evolutionary zealot, thus, it is probably better for you to avoid my posts. I am being respectful and wish to avoid wasting your time as well as mine.

Dr Adequate,
"They"?? Observation is a basis of the scientific method. I am not sure why the vitriol for my comment. Our relationship is that of the fox and the hound I would enjoy your constructive comments, but feel free to keep the negative stereotyping to yourself.
True science accepts all inquiries for testing, than sorts from there. I hope you will understand new evidence every day is being found by scientists that might change the way we understand the earth, origins, etc. A great example is the human genome project. The 70s brought the idea we were 99% similar to chimpanzees. Now, it is far less and we actually see the 600 million base pair difference along with the chromosomal difference. Junk DNA is no longer junk Amazing what we learn in time.

Razd,
Offended that is takes faith to get life from elements???
Offended that the human genome project has shown us to be very far from chimpanzees, etc??
Offended that I would dare question the secular science community, when simple observation puts much of it into question??
Maybe they should be in a different line of work, if they cannot handle the rigors of science and questioning theories as technology increases.
Occom's razor could agree that a Creator or ID force created or aided in our origin It does, after all, have the fewest assumptions. Creation .... creator.
ps- I never argued the age of the earth. I simply think there is more than our limited scope of knowledge. As for the meaning of science, I have a feeling you might need to take a look at the definition based on it's word origins. To know or to have knowledge sound familiar? Edited by mram10, : No reason given.Edited by mram10, : No reason given.

So, we agree All possible choices need to be present. As for chimpanzee v human dna, why don't you have questions about this "theory" based on the number of chromosome difference as well as the 600mil base pairs difference from chimps to humans.To answer why evolution and creation should be taught; as technology increases, we see the complexity of what were once thought of as basic forms. The complexity issue alone should warrant the ID option.As for the first cell.... is it possible it was created or came from crystals??? I have heard some off the wall explanations, yet ID is not a valid option?? You cannot argue logically that ID should not be listed as a valid option, since we have very little knowledge of our universe. Anyone saying we do, is dishonest and delusional.

As would I, my friend You somehow think that a cell was formed by pure accident, by elements that just so happened to show up from a singularity. Where did that come from? (It always gets back to that point, doesn't it) I would point you to the human genome project for information on the above. Please see for yourself and research the number of dna bases for humans and for chimps or orangatuns. I would hate to "make up" anything I would hope you could see past my quick typing and see the message behind But, that obviously goes against your agenda.It is obvious you are a brainwashed individual that is not interested in science. You are more interested in making irrational comments. It is amusing though

So zombie,
Are you saying unicorns never existed? So, you are saying you are omniscient? You discount any historical documents mentioning their existence? You discount that the mass number of extinct species did not include them? That would imply you have an idea of what each of theses extinct species was

Complexity in any engineering area generally requires a complex design. To see a simple organism and knowing what it required for it to "live" would point to more than a "miracle."

Please explain. What time frame? How much of a change? Thanks

My above question was asking about the chromosome difference as well as the 600 million base pair difference. The difference in base pairs is the big one. I am very interested to hear how that discrepancy has been accounted for.