Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Not acceptable to who? Those who do science or those who believe in old tribal lore?I would suggest that any idea supported by evidence, testing, and successful predictions is superior to old tribal lore whose only claim to fame is a lot of believers. No, it does not depend on how one interprets the evidence. Some interpretations are clearly wrong (unsupported by the evidence).But your real problem is that creationism does not "prove" itself, but must rely on belief, dogma, scripture and other fluff. There's no evidence that can stand up to testing. If there were, there would not be some 40,000 different brands, flavors, denominations, etc. of Christianity alone. If there were some way of testing claims with evidence you would have convergence rather than schism.In that, religion is the exact opposite of science whether you like it or not.

Nonsense. Just because you see everything through the rose-colored glasses of religious belief doesn't mean others do as well.There are a lot of folks out there who get along just fine without religion, and to call that lack of religion "a religion" is ludicrous.It is exactly the opposite, but then that's par for the course as creation science is the exact opposite of real science.

That's what makes the promise of eternal life the biggest scam ever perpetrated on humanity--by humanity.The shamans who thought up this scam, probably millions of years ago, have been living off the ill-gotten gains ever since.It's the ideal scam! Pay me now for what I promise that you'll get when you die.Makes all the snake-oil salesmen throughout history look like pikers by comparison. But at least with the snake-oil salesmen you got something in return, no matter how worthless.

You mean physical laws like those which control radiometric dating?Or is that something different because you disagree with the results?

You don't want to talk about those "factors" because you have nothing. That article on radiocarbon dating you referenced is pure wishful thinking and nonsense.But, if you are silly enough to want to present some of your "evidence" that all of these dating methods are wrong, there is a thread dedicated to just that one subject: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1I'd recommend that you read that thread first, then let's see what you got. But please, don't just copy some nonsense from a creationist website somewhere--when it comes to radiometric dating they will lie to you.

OK, we get the fact that you are anti-science, and you put belief over evidence. You have shown that in a number of different ways.Without evidence, why should we accept a single thing you have to say? Given that you are literally preaching your belief, rather than presenting evidence, perhaps you should end each post with "Amen!"And I can just imagine the "scientific" curriculum you would advocate based on your beliefs. You'd probably want to begin each lesson with "Hallelujah!"===========On a slightly different subject:

According to David Barrett et al, editors of the World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200, there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations." Religions of the world: numbers of adherents; growth rates

Why are there so many different religions, and so many separate branches of Christianity?It is because, like you, they rely on faith, dogma, scripture, revelation and other squishy sources of information, rather upon verifiable evidence. If two groups disagree on some point there is no reliable way to judge which is correct, so you have schism.Science is just the opposite. When there are competing hypotheses, it is the evidence, and testing of predictions against the evidence, which determines whether one is more correct than the other. Eventually you end up with a single theory explaining a given set of facts.

And radiocarbon dating was invented in the very late 1940s, and didn't become commonly available until about the mid-1950s.If he first heard about evolution in 1946, that supposes an age of at least 6 or 8. So, at what age in school did the famous coin dating experiment take place then? (This is all very confusing.)

Radiocarbon dating was invented close to a hundred years after evolution.And it is but one of many dating techniques used in various sciences. And it is not used to establish the maximum age of the earth--just a minimum age. But that's no problem. All of the dating techniques disprove the young earth idea. Face it, you really didn't know any better than to try to peddle the story of radiocarbon dating a coin.You could have come up with a far better creationist tale than that though. How about the natural gas from Mississippi that was misdated? Or the coal from Russia? Those are creationist favorites, and can be found all over the web and in their literature.But then: Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Your posts, rather than supporting the creationist cause, will likely have the opposite effect.Irrationality is not a trait that is generally admired.

They're wrong. "The Bible is such a gargantuan collection of conflicting values that anyone can prove anything from it." Robert A. Heinlein That means that you will ignore any evidence that contradicts your ancient tribal myths. If this is the case, you have absolutely no business even mentioning the word, "Science" let alone pretending that anything you do resembles the scientific method. What you are doing is exactly the opposite of science. What the bible says was disproved 200 years ago, and the evidence since that date has must made that disproof even more devastating. Scientists do not put their "opinions" (more accurately, their theories) above what the natural world shows. Rather they base their theories directly on what the natural world shows no matter what old tribal myths claim. You are the one who is placing your myths above nature. Hey, you're a good sport after all! It is a matter of putting old stories above the evidence that's all around you and that can be easily verified. And it is not a matter of intelligence capabilities--you are perfectly capable of seeing what is around you, but you have willfully put on blinders, and won't see that which you don't want to see. Willful ignorance is not a trait that is admired. Yes, I guess you know best. True. There are many outrageous claims in scriptures, and many of those have long-since been disproved.

Perhaps you need a more reliable source.Encyclopedia of American Loons: #807: Donald E. JohnsonMight I suggest a source with a very similar name, Donald Johanson:Biographies: Donald Johanson

And of course creationists want their odd brand of religion taught in schools and have been using all manner of sneaky tricks to get that done--in violation of law.Remember Dover and "cdesign proponentsists?"Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia

Another creationist "talking point." And a false one. Theories are the highest level of explanation in science. Theories organize and explain facts. Still another example of how wrong you are. Coyotes are smarter than wolves. Just look around the lower 48 states--wolves are extinct in most places, while coyotes are dining on Beverly Hills poodles!

In the "Separate school and state and religion" thread you posted: Presumably you feel religion better covers creation and the far past. In response, RAZD noted: So, which of these 10,000 or more religions do you want taught? Yours, perhaps?

Typical creationist response.Science disproves a lot of your religious beliefs, so it has to be discredited or destroyed.Guess you want a return to the dark ages or something pre-Enlightenment where religion ruled the roost and science had to kowtow to the shamans.Those days are gone for good (and I do mean good).