Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Utter nonsense. There is no such thing as "The Bible". There is not even a cohesive list of what should be included and excluded. Anyone making a claim that there is is either severely ignorant or a liar.In addition the Bible (any canon) is filled with inconsistencies, factual errors and contradictions. Bullshit. Not only are there no identifiable future prophecies but most past prophecies failed. Of course, thank God. Until you bring verifiable evidence of a non-natural event you should exclude it from consideration.

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.

Your premises I and II ("The Bible is unique" and "The Bible is God's word") fail completely to address in any manner the burning question of far greater importance: Did Stan Lee create the character of Captain America?Why do I bring up that question? Because it has just as much relevance and importance to your thesis that your premises I and II have, which is to say none whatsoever. Furthermore, as we can see from the first three replies, your premises I and II not only contribute nothing to your thesis, but it actually detracts greatly from it as it draws all discussion away from your thesis and to your bibliolatry.Which is a damned shame, because your thesis is not only true, but also very good: Any creation god that is Sovereign Over Nature would not only be capable of using natural processes to perform those creative acts, but it really wouldn't make much sense for her to have not used natural processes. And for any theology to insist that their god could not have used natural processes, even to the point that if natural processes are indeed found to be involved then that would actually count as evidence against their god (which is what ID's and many creationists' "God of the Gaps" theologies do end up saying), is just plain nonsensical and should count as an attempt at spiritual suicide.Natural processes are indeed at work and they will continue to work despite how much people do or do not believe that they are at work. Evolution has happened and continues to happen regardless of what people do or do not believe. Natural processes, including evolution, do happen and continue to happen regardless of anybody's attempts to dream up supernaturalistic explanations for them (ie, whether anybody's god or gods exist or not). And natural processes, including evolution, do happen and continue to happen regardless of what anybody thinks or believes about any sacred writing.Your beliefs that the Bible is unique and that it is God's Word have absolutely no bearing on your thesis and it violates one of the basic rules of combat: Do not share a foxhole with a brave soldier, because they tend to draw fire. Your beliefs about the Bible are drawing fire and causing your thesis to suffer collateral damage.I agree with your thesis that evolution does not conflict with the idea of a Creator god. We can even point to a few Bible verses that would appear to support your thesis of God using natural processes, including evolution, to create life:

quote:

---

Genesis:
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding
seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed
[was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was]
good.

​

. . .

​

1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above
the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature
that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after
their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw
that [it was] good.

​

. . .

​

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast
of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

---

Of course, your thesis does conflict with various theologies, fallible human interpretations based on fallible human misunderstanding. Those theologies also have nothing to do with the Bible, except for how they choose to misinterpret it.BTW, Captain America was created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby with issue #1 published in March 1941. Issue #2 saw his shield changed to a round one (the original looked too much like a competing comic book's character, The Shield) and in Issue #3 the new kid on the team, Stanley Lieber, expanded on his use of the shield as a thrown weapon. Lieber later assumed a pseudonym, Stan Lee, to protect his real name for when he'd start writing serious stuff.

yes

Could you provide reasons why you think that?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Yes! Absolutely! You know those two don't have to be conflicted right? It's enough to find a smart teacher who can present both without conflict? And even if we assume that alright those two don't match. Then again - a smart educator - can present both, describe them and let you chose what's more plausible for you.

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?

Just as you outlined.

quote:

---

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.

---

The teacher should then go on to point out that scientists supporting creationism are all liars.

Both? Do you have any idea how many creation myths there are? Or are you just presuming that your favorite story will be the alternative selected?Actually the title of the thread is poorly worded, as it doesn't make the context clear. Should kids be taught about religion? Sure. And physics, and grammar, and history too. If the thread were titled "Should we teach both evolution and English grammar in school?" would that make any sense? Of course not. Why? Because grammar and science are not alternatives to one another. When you say... ...you are making a statement that is conceptually nonsensical unless you have previously determined that certain religious claims are actually scientific in nature.So, should religion be taught? Sure, along with as many other things as possible. Should one brand of religion be injected into science class as if it were actually science? No. That would be lying.

I'd say wrong. If creationism was taught alongside evolution factually, the creationists would be the ones opposing it. They don't want their half-truths exposed. They want to discredit science.

It's almost inevitable that some teachers would do this. But actually taking that last step would probably cross a constitutional line. It would get really awkward if the kids reached the conclusion themselves and challenged the teacher with it.

I doubt the kids would be claiming to be scientists.

Who said they were.Kids, once presented with the arguments and realities, can reach the conclusion that they have been lied to by creationists without being scientists. And unlike the teacher, students are not state actors obligated to avoid making statements disparaging of religion. Hence the awkward moment for the teacher who is supposed to moderate the discussion without lying.

That's what happened in Livermore, CA, when a "balanced treatment" class using materials from the ICR which, after presenting lies about science, constantly called upon the students to make a choice between their "unnamed" Creator and "atheistic" evolution. A number of students, made that choice, for atheism!. From my quotes page (http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/quotes.html#HUNT):

quote:

---

JP Hunt, student in Ray Baird's 1980 "balanced treatment" class at Emma C. Smith Elementary School, Livermore, CA, in "Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", KPBS-TV, aired 7 July 1982:
"Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this, then I don't want to have any part of it."

---

For another report on the incident, see LIVERMORE 1981: Creation Science in the Classroom - A Case Study.What is the purpose of education? From the Anti-Dogmatism Statement in the 1989 California Science Framework:

quote:

---

We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.

---

Now please note creation science's "balanced treatment" instead DOES try to compel belief -- we know that for a real-world fact! As we have seen in real life, after having misinformed the student, it repeatedly urges the student to choose between the Creator and "godless evolution". Not only is that inconsistent with the goals of education, but it also works against those goals. All that "balanced treatment" is trying to do is to proselytize. Furthermore, the principal tools in that proselytizing is the use of false claims and deception. And one of the effects of "balanced treatment" has been to turn some of those students into atheists.The goal in science education is for the student to understand the ideas, regardless of whether they believe those ideas or not. The US Air Force had the same goal when they taught us NCOs socialism and communism; obviously they did not intend to turn us into communists.If there were ever a group that had the most need to learn everything they could about evolution, it's creationists! And much more so the children of creationists. If they honestly and truly want to fight against and defeat evolution, then they need to know everything they possibly can about evolution. They need to understand evolution completely if they are to ever have any hope of destroying it. Instead, they shout out their abysmal ignorance, grasping for support from any lie and deception that they can dream up. Their zealous love for deception and for lying about everything and anything they can is the least desirable characteristic of their misbegotten theology. And the students can see through those lies.

Can you read? Of course and it is even vaguely possible that there might be a Creationist who is simply ignorant and delusional and not a liar; but that is totally unrelated to what I said.Please actually go back and try to read what I wrote this time.