Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

I could find a model for those cliffs if I went there, just like I have found in Oz.
In regards to the global flood Q, I don't think I could convince you of anything.
But I accept that you have a different opinion, without trying to change it.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

I can not discredit your findings, experience and conclusions. And I don't want to, even though I know why I disagree.That is the risks students face in education. Different points of view contradicting each other, makes me wonder if we should keep those subjects for entertainment purposes only!

A response to RAZD's previous essay.What we have in mind affects our conclusions. And if something is repeated for long enough people accept it as truth or whatever.
Such has been the progress of science, an accumulated pile which now is moving on its own impetus.And there is no arguing, with this interconnected fur ball, except when it becomes too much, it will finally be hocked up and out of this world.So yes enjoy while it lasts.

So I was right, I cannot convince you of anything.

Going by the responses on this thread, the two subjects are incompatible and would only cause controversy.
Unless religious beliefs are totally watered down and submissive to the great god of science. Which of course they have been doing in a hurry since the end of the reformation.
The pope officially (officially- because it is a political institution) condones evolution and accepts it as fact, proving that he is fallible as those who were burned at the stake thought.

Oh definitely Sydney, Canberra is just a big roundabout with hot air coming from a white building on the median.

Staying on topic shows whether you are focused, and able to think clearly.
Even the questions could be targeted at answering the thread theme.
You all know it is not about what we argue about, but whether what we argue for should be taught in conjunction at schools.Clearly opposing principles of education.Genuine Biblical studies are not philosophical, but the beginning of faith, whereas science is a study of doubt, hence everything needs to be documented and dissected and approved by a board.The student of faith watches the frog by the pond catching insects and eating them. He examines the poop and discovers parts of insects in it, so he concludes that the frog eats insects and has proof.The student of science, kills a hundred frogs and has a hundred scientists from different parts of the world cut them open and document the gizzards as well as write up an essay to a recognized peer reviewed magazine.
After some years, students will be allowed to buy text books containing this information, and know that frogs eat insects. And be tested on it, and if they fail they will have a mundane career.The student of faith still has a pond and is now studying tadpoles.The students of science are sitting in class, hitting each other out of boredom, because the frogs were killed off and there is a plague of insects outside.

But you would also disagree with a book that claimed your house was a million times older, and that it took that long to build.I get your point though.

The subjects of religion and science have large areas of overlap, they can agree on many points. And they can agree even more as religions give up their stance on creationist views, which has been happening on the official level.But if religions remain where they came from, there is less to agree on with science.
And if science included God in the picture then it would merge to some extent into religion.My argument is that true science and true religion are the one and same study and that they can and should be taught together.
But the prevalence of false religion and false science has not only created a divide but a merging of the two, like a dysfunctional relationship does.Science disproves the false aspect of religion, and false science disproves the true aspect of religion.If we separate these two imbeciles, we only perpetuate their development, and if we teach them together, it creates more confusion.Since both these subjects have elements of truth to them, there are those who think that they are compatible. But since they are both have error mixed in...
not a wonder it is an unsettled affair.

True, but imagine how far you'd have gotten at school if the teacher had just stated that the letter "a" is "a" and you said, prove it to me, I won't believe it until it is proven to be so. You'd never get ahead.But you accepted the alphabet by faith so that you could learn to read. The proof that "a" = "a" could only come if you accepted it first. Such is creationist knowledge. "by faith we understand that God created worlds" -plural, not single, here is evidence of other worlds, and yet science has not discovered them yet or have they?Faith comes before more things than we want to admit, so it is not a disposable tool for discovery at all.

Yes, if the earth was that old, that's true. Personally I go with about 6000 years old. I have never believed the methods claimed for dating materials is correct, mainly because I had a coin from 1958 which dated at 2500 years old by radio carbon dating. Apparently the mistakes in readings are exponential after a few decades back in time. But there is no sense in arguing here. I'm just letting you know where I'm at.

It was done by the science class at school, where numerous items the students had were sent away to be tested, and the results given to the class.
The coin was an Australian penny which I found under the neighbor's demolished house, if you are saying that embedded dirt have given the false reading, I would agree. But dating methods are wrong because the earth is only about 6000 years old. But in your reckoning the whole world cannot be wrong and deceived can it? That is just not possible is it? That question will make you really uncomfortable...

It just proves we should not teach evolution in schools, because of ALL the things that went wrong and were dubious in that simple exercise, the lack of professionalism, the biased teachers, the religious creationists sabotaging the experiment, the lies, the wrong data, the outdated methods, the problems and the reams of examinations that must follow, the requested proofs and evidences now to be met. The panic of professors of science. The school is sinking with all students on board!
Bring the evolution guard in, have these arrested, tested and documented. Oh the essays and reports that have to be written, YOUR PAPERS PLEASE!!Sounds like communism...wait a minute evolution is their doctrine. Well what do you know, an atheist communist education...By the way it was a state school with an atheist teacher, who by the way became a Christian soon after. Such a loss to the cause of the red sun.

I was eleven years old in year 7...not really interested in reams of paperwork, or of large groups of men defining a history of the world, when none of them were old enough to have been there. The items tested for age were numbered and could have been mixed up. I did not care really.We had no creationist teachers hiding in the lab room, just a few lessons in biology about evolution and old rocks from state teachers.It's interesting that if someone does not believe in evolution, that they are automatically labelled as religious.Is that because evolution is a direct hit at the thought of God? Or is it just a convenient label while they don't have another?Some atheists have a need to retaliate against the religious, which to me is just the leftovers of the French revolution.I cannot avoid the implications of political influences in the teachings of science, just as the persecuting church influenced ignorance in science.Personally I think both have the same source in ruling the thoughts of men, which in the end is about removing the value of independent thought.Independent thought is taboo to science, as it was heresy to the church.

Sure, I get where you are coming from, and yes, the majority in the US who do not believe in evolution are religious. In Australia, most don't care about evolution at all, and are not religious.I like science, I like method and the protocols with peer reviews etc, but I don't agree on a few approaches, which are based on majority assumptions.
That's not the fault of science, but just the way people do things, its sociological.