Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

I don't want you making these brief hit & run posts where nothing of substance is discussed. Please stop. Suspensions will follow.

I'm not an atheist but I personally believe that we should teach evolution and science because students get enough of religion by going to church. The responsibility of school should be to teach students about what's been discovered, invented, how life has evolved during the years, the big bang, etc. It's up to them as they grow up to choose what they want to believe.
So my personal opinion will be to keep religion out of schools.

That's the simple answer, but it's more involved. On my BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God? page, I offer my response to a local creationist's question, "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?". His question was ambiguous, but he refused to clarify it while demanding a strictly yes/no answer from me, so my general answer was: "Yes to some interpretations of the question and no to other interpretations, depending on the circumstances and completely independent of whether any god or gods do or do not exist." And I explained what those interpretations could be and how I responded to each specific one. Follow that link to see that, since I personally think it was a good answer as did a third party in that conversation. The creationist was unable to understand any of it and ended up fleeing the discussion by cancelling his email account.The first point of confusion is differing definitions and goals of "teaching". In religion, the goal of teaching is indoctrination, dictating what the students are required to believe and then compelling them to hold those beliefs. In public schools, the goal of education is not to compel belief, but rather for the student to understand the subject matter.Obviously, we would not want public schools to engage in religious indoctrination, but that should not prevent teaching about religion in public schools. In social studies, history, art, and literature we should teach about the various religions so that the students will know about the beliefs and the history of various religions, the religious factors in a multitude of wars, and the mythological themes from all religions that appear repeatedly in literature and in works of arts (we already do it for Greek and Roman mythology, so why not the other religions?). So long as you do not try to compel the students to convert to those religions.The proper subject matter of science classes is science. However, there can be value in mentioning old discarded ideas (eg, geocentrism, caloric theory, phlogiston) and showing why those ideas are wrong. There can also be value in looking at instances of pseudo-science and showing why they are wrong. Most of that should be doable in less than half of a single lecture. This could be the proper role of creationism in a science class.Unfortunately, this reasonable approach can present problems. First, it must be implemented in good faith and we know from long bitter experience that religionists almost never act in good faith, but rather would certainly result in them trying to subvert and exploit the system.Another problem with teaching about religions is that those religions would end up trying to prevent that teaching. For example, Mormon parents would certainly rebel at their children learning the actual history of the origins of Mormonism.So the issue is a bit more complicated and there are good reasonable solutions that should be satisfactory to all parties, except for the fact that not all parties will be reasonable.

I don't suggest teaching religion in school, not do I support
teaching evolution, especially as a science.It is not a science. It is impossible to replicate what evolutionists
claim. Belief in evolution is merely that--a belief.And as such, it is a religion. It takes a leap of faith to believe in
a concept that has never, nor ever will be, proved.One can believe in evolution with all their heart and mind, but
it will always have to be accepted on faith.Schools should be honest by stating that they cannot determine
how life began or why there is such an abundance of diversified
life.

Replication of past events is not required. Replication of observations of the effects of past events is required and is.

quote:

---

I don't suggest teaching religion in school, not do I support
teaching evolution, especially as a science.

---

Schools shouldn’t censor science just because it contradicts some religious belief. That would lead to all sorts of problems.

quote:

---

It is not a science. It is impossible to replicate what evolutionists
claim.

---

You don’t know much about, science, do you?Evolution is certainly science. And it is certainly possible to replicate the experimental work, and to repeat many relevant observations.
Fossils don’t generally disappear, to use just one example.Astronomy has it harder. Supernovas don’t happen to order and the event itself is soon over - to use just one example.

You just proved how vitally important it is to maintain the quality of science education, since you just demonstrated how much you misunderstand what science is and undoubtedly how little you understand how it works. You are the result of a failure to learn science.But why is it that you concentrate so much of your hatred of science against evolution. Why do you single out evolution? Why not physics? Or geology? Or astronomy? Each of those other sciences are key in exposing the falsehood of creationists' young-earth claims, so (assuming you are also a young-earther) you should really hate them. And yet you focus almost all of your hate at evolution. Why?You obviously do not understand evolution. Do you fear it? Do you feel threatened by it? Whatever kind of threat could evolution possibly pose to you?If you want to attack evolution, then at the very least try to learn something about it first. Attacking evolution for things that don't even apply to it only succeeds in demonstrating your ignorance of the subject matter and can only result in you losing all your battles. And you will never win by running away scared from all attempts to get you to try to support any of your own claims and to engage in any actual discussion. 
And please don't run away again terrified of a few simple questions. You still haven't answered my simple questions about your misunderstanding about "kinds". Please go back to Message 20, Message 25, Message 26 and answer my questions.

Observation proves that human parents produce human babies;
that puppies come from dogs; that piglets come from pigs; and,
chimps procreate chimps.No poster on this site has "observed" a dog producing a cat; a
cow producing a raccoon; or, an ape producing a human.Never has a pregnant woman asked "I wonder what kind of animal
will I give birth to?They know for certain that their offsprings will be a human.Why are they (and I) so sure of this fact? Because for thousands
of years we have observed.this to be true.This is observable science. Science does not disagree with
this proven fact; however, evolutionists (whose paradigm prevents
them from seeing truth) reject "observational science."Fossils exist. This is a proven fact. But, they don't comes
with labels attached to them, stating how old they are, or
how many offsprings they had.Humans (guided by their paradigm) place their own interpretations
on them.Scientists (evolutionists) might accept evolution as being
true, but science is not so kind to this concept.

quote:

---

No poster on this site has "observed" a dog producing a cat; a
cow producing a raccoon;

---

Just as evolutionary theory says!(Humans are apes so obviously humans give birth to apes).

You might want to reduce yourself to the level of an ape,
and I won't attempt to dispute what you so firmly believe.However, I am not kin to the apes, nor were any of my ancestors.

I love science. Look at all the ways that science
improved our standard of living.God commands His followers to "prove" all things.The way I see the situation is this:The Bible and science vs. evolutionists and misguided
human reasoning.

So you claim you aren’t human, and that you’re better than human.Interesting. So what are you?

quote:

---

I love science. Look at all the ways that science
improved our standard of living

---

And yet here you are attacking science teaching.

quote:

---

God commands His followers to "prove" all things.

---

Where prove means test - and you’re supposed to hold on to the good, not the bad.

quote:

---

The way I see the situation is this:

​

The Bible and science vs. evolutionists and misguided
human reasoning

---

More accurately it’s frauds and their dupes versus the science of evolution,

The Bible was written by humans, for humans of that particular period and society and is filled with contradiction, absurdities, fantasies, fiction, office memo, and even some worthwhile philosophy with a smattering of history generally concealed in propaganda.The biggest weakness in the Bible is that it's failings are never corrected while science always tests and discards the failings.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Surely after spouting such nonsense, you can proudly call yourself a Christian.