Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

The following lecture should be of interest to you--if you will even watch it, which I doubt.Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):

Religion is not a scientific theory, it is a belief--i.e., it is based on dogma and belief, not evidence.The theory of evolution is based on evidence and successful predictions. It explains all the relevant evidence and is not contradicted by any relevant evidence.

We did not evolve from monkeys.Both the ape line (of which we are a part) and monkey line evolved from a critter that can best be described as an ape-toothed monkey.And this is what the evidence shows--no belief needed.

Sorry, you are wrong once again.I have actually studied the evidence; half my graduate work to the Ph.D. level was in the fields of fossil man and human osteology. (The other half was in anthropology/archaeology.)You are useful for your entertainment value though!I have seen the evidence, and studied it. It shows you are absolutely wrong--but of course being a troll you won't accept any evidence that contradicts your beliefs, no matter how well-documented that evidence is.

We should begin by rejecting anything creationists tell us, as creationists are 180 anti-science.So, why should we listen to them at all?They have no evidence, just apologetics.

I posted a nice list of definitions on the other thread in Message 91.Take a look, you might learn something.Edited by Coyote, : Added link

You are treating a scientific subject using generic terms? That's like bringing a pea-shooter to a gun fight. (An apt analogy for creationists.) No, those who are choosing the generic terms are either ignorant or deliberately trying to confuse things. (Either fits creationists.) No, any time you try to teach science, you have to include the terms as scientists use them. Science has a need for precise terms, and these definitions have been worked out over decades or centuries. We have no need for creationists to try and obfuscate the findings of science by altering the terms to fit their beliefs. That's gibberish. Teaching in schools should include accurate information, which it seems you are lacking. I suspect it is deliberate.Creationists who are inherently anti-science really have no business teaching science in schools.

You really don't want students to be taught to think critically about religion, as the claims religion makes fare very poorly when they are critically examined.

​

--A young earth?
--A global flood 4,350 years ago?
--A talking snake?
--Swallowed by a whale for days and coming out alive?
--Etc.

What you really want students taught is dogma, and I suspect you would only settle for them to be taught your dogma.I would also suspect that you don't want to have students taught the Native American origin story that Eagle was the creator. Or any of those other "pagan" origin stories for that matter.I have found that when creationists promote "critical thinking" they want only evolution criticized, and they want to have it criticized based on their religious beliefs rather than on scientific evidence.On the other hand, creationists will do most anything to avoid having their religious beliefs subjected to critical thinking.

Comparative religion is social studies, so we teach it in social studies classes.Religious belief and dogma are religion, so they are taught in churches, etc.

Leave it up to students? Hah! What do students know about radiometric dating and all the other techniques for establishing age? ^*Students need to be told what science has established, whether some fringe groups accept that evidence or not.The evidence shows that the earth is very, very old, not some thousands of years old, so that's what students should be told.^* Probably a lot more than creationists!

A majority consensus of whom?The vast majority of the population doesn't have a clue on these issues and they don't get a say in the first place. They have to rely on scientists--you know, those guys who do have a clue--to figure things out for them.Your problem is that you are taking your beliefs from old tribal myths, rather than what the evidence shows.In this you are far behind the vast majority of the population.In this, it is not so much what you don't know, it is what you do know that is flat-out wrong.

OK. Fair enough.You've been a good sport about all this.

More accurately, science is a method for gathering and analyzing data, and for learning about the natural world.Scientists never "bow down and begin worshiping as the truth" what science finds. We realize that what science has found is subject to change or improvement as more information comes in and as new or better theories are developed to explain that data.Creationists, on the other hand, are looking for absolute TRVTH, dogma, and unchanging beliefs. Sorry, try down the hall. That's not what science is about at all.And creationists shouldn't try to assume that their way of doing things applies to science as well.

If someone disagrees with present science, they better have evidence to back up their claims, and not be relying on old tribal myths.Unfortunately, creationists don't do this.

There is no evidence for that.Google "channeled scablands." Those floods were three times older than the claimed global flood, but we can see the evidence clearly.The claimed global flood, much larger and much more recent is nowhere to be found.