Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

It is easy to see the mischief resulting from such an attempt. A fundy biologist teacher would be sorely tempted not to teach science and to denigrate evolution as "mere theory", while even and even handed approach would border on denigrating fundamentalist religious beliefs in an inerrant Bible. Imagine, ofr example, if we also tossed in the creation myths that Greeks and Romans used to subscribe to. Wouldn't doing so lumb Genesis in with mythology, and therefore ridicule it?I'm not suggesting that the comparison might not be doable without crossing some constitutional line, but I would not want my livelihood to depend on not crossing the line.Further, one might well use the same reasoning to suggest that a science class could delve into astrology in physics class. Astrology and Genesis are not science. I don't belief this is possible. Certainly not if there is to be a literal equivalence and corresponding order for each event described in Genesis. Except that there are some things in Genesis that cannot so easily (if at all) be reconciled simply by assuming the story is mere allegory written in proper timeline order. What about day and night existing on earth before there was a Sun? How about earth existing before the sun? Or the stars being created after the earth? {OMG - An at least partially on-topic message. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : OMG message.

I don't buy it. I accept neither the classification of people who accept scientific explanations as deviants and atheists nor the postulate that there is anything to be gained by reconciling science with the views of fundamentalists.I disagree that Genesis is amazingly correct. What you've illustrated is that some things in Genesis if taken allegorically, can be reconciled with some aspects of cosmology if you don't look at either the science or the Bible too critically. The fact is that electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies was present in the universe well before the 400,000 or so time point you refer to. But the universe was opaque prior to that point. Are you sure there were no inland waters on Pangaea? No lakes, rivers, or inland seas? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

And how did this day and night on earth exist on day 1, without the sun which Genesis lists as being created on day 4.Further you are equivocating here. The question about when light was created deals with the time before the universe became transparent to light. So were the waters gathered together in one place or were they not? This turn of phrase is pretty slippery anyway. If you want to say that even with lakes and rivers, the waters are still "gathere together into one place" then we could describe that as pretty much the state of affairs that exists now. After all, the oceans are all connected together. Do you believe the sun existed at those times? How about the stars and moon? What does Genesis say? What I don't "buy" is that the two sides are deviants+atheists+homosexuals vs. creationists as you suggested. Wasn't my post clear on that point? I'll repeat the relevant part below: Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

I see some good in it. I suggest that studying religion is at least as beneficial as studying any historical subject. In fact I believe it would be a great idea to provide some instruction in both the Koran and the Bible, because doing so might aid in understanding your neighbor. Certainly other religions should be included.For what it's worth, I remember spending a good deal of time discussing mythology in 8th grade English. That stuff was all part of someone's religion. What if we had spent time comparing origin stories. How long would that rlast before the fundies got in an uproar.

A teacher would likely get fired for teaching this kind of truth in many jurisdictions. It might even be considered an infringement on the first amendment.

What you are describing is exactly the creationists game. The argument would be that both secular notions and the Bible have exactly the same scientific support (namely none), so why do you believe your secular, rebellious, fallen crap instead of the word of God?

Here is one problem with your argument. Evolution describes a process within which new complexity can arise and thrive without any intelligent intervention.Your counter examples all involve objects which cannot reproduce, cannot of themselves introduce new complexity, and which have no means of testing and rejecting any unsuccessful designs without human intervention. So one might be hugely skeptical about attempts to extend engineering notions into the realm of biology where life forms and nature do indeed posses exactly those properties and abilities.In fact, your formulation of ID is simply a statement that you do not believe in evolution. That is, your argument is assertion and nothing more.

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.

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.

duplicateEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

While what I posted was related to what you said, it was not intended as any kind of rebuttal. Perhaps you are a bit paranoid?School teachers probably are not allowed to tell students that their pastors are lying to them even if that is indeed the reality.Can you read?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The teacher is not going to be able to call any Christian a liar for expressing a belief. Period.Here is the original exchange. Note that my response is directly to your point. It is your follow o response that makes no sense. Where did I make such a claim? I discussed what what happen if the students concluded that the scientists were liars rather than hearing it from the teacher. Your reading is complete nonsense.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It's okay. I can take it. As I see it, my initial comment was ambiguous and jar chose to interpret it in a stupid way. My fault for not being clear. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

1) No they are not.
2) A teacher who announces such a thing is on thin constitutional ice.

One of the things that's always fascinated me about physics was the amount of stuff that individuals can actually verify for themselves. Perhaps if you weren't recommending reading anonymous ancient writings over stuff we can actually check on our own, you might be able to generate more credibility.