Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

This one was soooo funny: Now Colbard wants to rewrite history, too. Didn't the special priviledges of Louis XVI, his family, other royals, enjoyed over hundreds of years, also play a huge part in this revolution?What's history got to do with the teaching of science in schools, anyway? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

And there is the answer to my question. The fault does not lie with your teacher, but rather the fault lies entirely with you. Your brain was (and still is) filled with so much nonsensical bullshit that you had rendered yourself incapable of learning even the most basic concepts.In Message 557 you said: Now you know that your reason for not trusting dating methods is based on your own incredible ignorance and, quite frankly, stupidity from being such an incompetent student. So now you can either rethink your stand on dating methods, or else double-down on stupid.You strike me as the type who will double-down on stupid without giving it a thought. Which, I know, is redundant.

How?I started studying "creation science" in 1981 because creationists claimed to have scientific evidence for creation and I wanted to know what it was. In the 32 years since then, I have never once seen any creationist be able to present any scientific evidence for creation, nor have I ever seen one make the attempt. I've been discussing creation/evolution on-line since about 1987 and have repeatedly requested that evidence, but always in vain. Oh sure, creationist after creationist would claim to have mountains of evidence for creation, but never has one actually presented any evidence for creation. All they would ever offer would be false claims against evolution and other sciences, but never ever any evidence for creation.I even wrote to Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), one of the creators of "creation science" asking for that evidence. He replied that they considered negative "evidence" against evolution to be positive evidence for creation. That is their "Two Model Approach" which postulates two and only two mutually exclusive models, the "creation model" and the "evolution model". They never define the "creation model" in any by the most general of terms and then define their "evolution model" as being everything else including "most of the world's religions, both ancient and modern" (as Dr. Henry Morris himself wrote to me). The "Two Model Approach" is a prime example of a False Dilemma, AKA "false dichotomy", a logical fallacy designed to deceive, a lie. "Creation science" therefore becomes nothing more than a series of arguments and claims against their "evolution model" (which is at best a gross misrepresentation of evolution; ie, yet more creationist lies) with which they attempt to "prove" creation solely by "disproving" "evolution", all without ever presenting any evidence for creation or even presenting their "creation model" at all.They must never actually present their "creation model", because that is part of the legalistic deception for which they created "creation science" in the first place. In the debates (which was the creationists' primary vehicle), it is always their opponents who have to present the "creation model", because the creationists never will. And in the rare cases where creationists do present the "creation model" (eg, in the 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law), that exposes it as being a very narrow literalistic interpretation of Genesis and therefore purely religious.Creation cannot be taught scientifically because there is no scientific evidence for creation. Of course, if you have some actual scientific evidence for creation, then please do present it. Nor could "creation science" ever possibly be taught without evolution, since it consists almost purely of false claims and arguments against evolution.

I'll be stupid to make you feel better about yourself.

You believe that science is a flawless self justifying machine, when it is also based on fundamental human beliefs which drive the conclusions considered to be evidence.
One of these days science will double over and die, taking the theories of the last century with it.
That is already beginning to happen now.
It will also be uncovered that the dating methods used are based on false premises.

The falsehood of this statement is that science doesn't dismiss god.There is no scientific statement made about god anywhere. Science has nothing whatsoever to say about god. Loads of scientists believe in God.All science does is comment on stuff in the natural world which it can observe and test. Some religions have found that this process has revealed that some of their ancient stories are not literally true. That's all.

Because these delusionalisticals inevitably start wanting to to teach their delusions in science classes.Google the 'Wedge Document'.

Do you realise that you are responding to a post cautioning against attacking science rather than describing the evidence for 'creation science' by attacking science.Being 18 is no excuse for not reading the posts that you are responding to.

The bottom line of modern science is to dismiss God, with or without mentioning the Name.

I have not been able to respond to numerous posts, which no doubt have good arguments.
When the posts grow into essays I switch off, because a good answer can be summarized. Edited by Colbard, : delete word

Utter crap. Science doesn't give a monkeys about god and gods.If you think differently please support your assertion with evidence. The evidence needs to be policies, statements from academic institutions, peer reviewed papers - anything in the hundreds of millions of books and papers referring to science's actual work that claims that it is setting out to "dismiss" God/s.By the way, that excludes opinions of what scientists personally believe about god/s. e.g. Dawkins.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

This premise is false, therefore your whole thesis built on this false premise is invalid.Is the ground you stand on an idea? a belief?Or is the material that you can touch feel see smell something that exists outside of thought and belief?Science rests on objective empirical evidence.Enjoy.

Did Colbard say he was 18? His profile says he's 30.--Percy

You just seem determined to show your ignorance, don't you.I am religious and believe in God but also understand that we are simply evolved critters, that neither of the mutually exclusive Biblical Floods ever happened, that the earth is at least 4 billion years old and that you are simply full of shit, spouting nonsense and hell bent on convincing everyone that you are willfully ignorant or a liar.

You haven't provided any "good answers" yet. You've mostly said things that are obviously untrue, and some other things that seem hateful and ignorant, such as likening science to the Dark Ages (the blossoming of science played a significant role in the Enlightenment), and saying that science will die. You're like a caricature of a creationist.Science only cares about what can be supported with evidence. There's no evidence for God, so science has nothing to say on the subject. Science definitely does not say there's no God, but without evidence science cannot comment, except perhaps to say there's no evidence.In science class, why wouldn't you want to teach the most up-to-date scientific knowledge?--Percy