Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Who cares what MTW said? We all know his motivations.Sorry, but no. Science class is about introducing students to the scientific method. Students are taught to accept or reject using the scientific method and about historical applications of the scientific method.I highly doubt that you have the same objections to what is taught in math class. We don't allow students to be be free about whether to apply the Pythagorean theorem to right triangles in plane geometry or about whether the algorithm for long division works.Sorry but making school 'an adventure' does not mean failing to teach students methods for conducting rigorous investigations. Just teaching them facts without doing that would indeed be spoon feeding.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Considered and rejected.Unfortunately, we have a civilization to run here. We cannot afford to have our future citizens be ignorant of basic educational requirements, despite the fact that our current system prevents them from obtaining a "True" education. Sorry, that'll ruin the economy. We need an educated workforce.Not a bunch of ignorant freeloaders.

It's a cute saying that "learning should be an adventure" but it isn'r really practical for an education system. Given the option, most children would do most of their adventuring on the playground instead of in the classroom, so a certain amount of "force feeding" is necessary.The problem with being "self-educated' is that there is no discipline. There is nobody to "force" you to look at the things you need to know instead of just the things you want to know. That's why people who are "self-educated" tend to fall for nonsense like creationism - they've chosen to look at only one side.A proper education system "forces" students to look at all sides. In the case of creationism, if it is presented honestly, the students will see for themselves that there is nothing to it. There is, indeed, nothing to teach.

To be, in the same way that the purpose of rocks is to be. There is no problem with teaching about religion in classes on religion -- as long as many religions are compared and contrasted, which is the LAST thing fanatic believers want to see. This would however allow students to be open-minded and apply critical thinking to what they believe.Or in classes on human history and the contributions pro and con from the various religions in the development of modern society.Science should be taught in science class, and whether you like it or not, evolution IS science.It is strange that you single out evolution, when geology, physics, astronomy, and other science disciplines also show many religious beliefs to be invalid. Galileo showed that the earth was not the center, yet religion survived. There is massive evidence that the earth is old, very very old, yet religion survives. There is equally massive evidence that evolution is an ongoing process that explains the diversity of life on earth, and religion will survive this knowledge as well. You want critical thinking but you want to restrict it to fit your beliefs? What a strange idea.Most religions in the world, most believers of religions in the world do not have a conflict with evolution or sciences.See The Clergy Letter Project That would be approaching the topic with a skeptical open mind. Darwin is neither the beginning nor the end of evolution science. He is not the god-father\figurehead\icon of evolution, and his work was paralleled by Wallace, and built on work by his father as others have built on the findings of others in the field -- the way science grows. Not to worry one can always flip burgers. Or be a banker. But if you want to be a biologist you need to study the fields of biology, ecology and evolution.Enjoy.

Children are nowhere near as dumb as you seem to beleive. The problem with that is that many things are non intuitive.For example: levels of anxiety decrease with exposure to the anxiety provoking situation. But intuitively we avoid anxiety provoking situations. Children need to be informed about how the world works when it is counter intuitive.Does they Sun go around the Earth? Sure looks that way.
Does the Moon circle the Earth? Sure looks that way.Both of the above statements are false: but it is not obvious unless one is informed why.Bo you see?Edited by Larni, : DVD extras.

Education styles ... so many

Yeah

Thank you Sister in the habit.

Ouch !

I like the comparing contrasting bit

We could define force. Of course we don't want total self education or a lack of discipline at all, but exposure and experience.I think we can submit to our children the things which we thought helped us to make our conclusions, but not to make those conclusions for them.In China children were taught that Chairman Mao makes the sun rise. That's force.
Education would be to take them onto the China wall at sunrise.

Hmmm. I wonder what "Yeah" means.Does it mean that you realize now that you have no grounds for excluding evolution from public school science classrooms?Or does it mean you now understand that a reference to "dumb conclusions" more appropriately applies to the Bible than to science?Or does it mean you agree we should introduce evolution to Sunday School classrooms and let students make up their own minds?Or does it mean you believe we should teach students the best of our knowledge in each subject?Or does it mean you accept all the above?Or was "Yeah" just a feeble attempt to deflect attention from questions for which you have no answers.Inquiring minds want to know.--Percy

How young are you?Teenager?

Yes we should teach both in their proper disciplines.Evolution is science so we teach it in science class.
Religion is social studies, so we teach it in social studies class.

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.