Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Or they could have been lumped together in a global flood?

Silly me.

404 Page not found - friendsoftibet.org Mao is the sun.Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.

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.

That would be as big an error as not teaching evolution. Religion is part of our history and culture and we need to remember the mistakes we made with it and why we made them so that we can understand and live easier alongside others with differing beliefs.

So an elitist group of scientists reach the unreachable heights of knowledge through scientific method which includes peer reviewing and other intellectual codependent rituals, passing down their treatises to the impoverished vulgate.Then we are supposed teach their enlightened thoughts in school.To quote some of their home hitting truths - "Mars has a history of violence" "The universe will expand then shrink back to nothing" "the universe is filled with dark malevolent forces" "the koalas are wombats that progressed into tree living" "this species of monkeys has offspring with yellow hair so that the parents can find it easily" "Earlier bats used to live on the ground"So what did you say was tribal and mythical?Yes, I must wrong and so contented as well.

I get what you are saying. It is balanced and with best intent, but do you know how creepy both religion and evolution are? And how that both are controlled by spiritually inept men?

I certainly know how creepy religion is and how it is controlled by inept men. That's why it needs to be taught.Evolution though is just science; no different than any other. No one is in control of it - prove it wrong and you'll get a Nobel prize.

Yea, I guess whatever is out there will rightfully belong to education. People need to be informed.
Personally, I think there are two sides to science, the good side and the bad side, just like there is in religion. Both are broad subjects.
However, I much prefer the scientific method of interpretation than the religious way of doing things. Science cannot afford too many hidden agendas.
I believe that there is true religion and true science and that the two are perfectly harmonious. But they are opposite worlds at the moment.

Personally, I believe that education should be as true as we can practically make it. It should discuss all of the religions, for example. I agree in that I believe that there is one truth---which is what we all may find out once we die--if then.Former EvC members Robin Rohan and Buzsaw may have found out what is really true---then again, maybe they just died and there is no afterlife.I also agree that there is by definition a true science, but what makes you think they are not pursing that now? After all, what hidden agenda or ulterior motive could current science have--if not to further educate and enlighten humanity?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Utter bullshit and idiocy. Please provide a model and method for an flood sorting in that way.

We could definitely have the children investigate that possibility. First, take them outside to look at the leaves on the ground (since school conveniently begins in fall). Would they expect all of the leaves to come from one gigantic tree or from the many ordinary-sized trees that they see around them?Then have them think about whether organisms that are killed by a flood are likely to have been killed by one gigantic flood or by many ordinary-sized floods that they see on the news.I think you'll find that letting children make up their own minds is the last thing that creationists want.

No, it is a symptom of fanatic fundamentalists wanting to make the world conform to their narrow beliefs rather than accept reality for what it shows.That this problem only comes up with fanatic fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu) and that the reaction of different sects is different shows that the issue is one of religion and not one of reality or science understanding reality. OR they recognize that belief that is contradicted by the evidence of reality is wrong, and that maintaining that belief in spite of evidence contradicting it is delusional. Again I suggest you look at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for the evidence that the earth is significantly older than any YEC scenario from a number of different sources that reach the same results: the earth IS very very old. This phrase doesn't make sense to me. Can we classify and categorize things by age? Usually, by many different methods. Can we test people on the age of the earth? Yes. You don't get to vote on facts, you can accept them or be delusional. Not really: there are different species in different layers and there are thousands of these sorted layers that occur one on top of the other without the jumbling\mixing that would result from a single event. The different shells are basically the same sizes overall, but each layer has different sizes that would be separated out by one settling event.Teaching this simple fact in schools would be an easy to understand argument for age.Enjoy

Of course the majority of science is headed for practical value, I don't want to elaborate on my opinions about other agendas and education, because it is political, and as you know that is what has a lot of impact in education. I would rather stick to our shared values and ideas.