Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

You're forgetting the other half of the usual anti-science rant. You forgot to argue that scientists have split personalities - that they're absolutely brilliant when it comes to creating sat-navs, building brain scanners, constantly creating new medicines and treatments, firing rockets into space, inventing computers, learning to warn against tsunamis, predicting where to find oil, working out those pesky sub-atomic particles, and loads more stuff which is frankly indispensible in modern society, and which works fantastically well - but that they only become these "retards" when they say something which goes against your beliefs.I reckon it's something they put in the water at university.

Good grief.You really don’t understand what science is, do you ? You seem to think that it’s simply assertion, backed up by a book someone wrote (which is actually what creationism is, but there you go).We’ve been encouraging you to have a go at understanding evolution, but you seem to need to start further back than that - you need to understand what science is first of all.Try learning what the scientific method is. This here is the Wikipedia page: Scientific method - WikipediaIt’s shooting at an educated audience, though, so this may be easier to get into as an opener: Steps of the Scientific MethodYou need to understand what we’re saying, in order to try to attack it.

Assertion.
No evidence.
Fail.

You nailed it :-)

I’ve found another thread, re-hashing this line, this time from 2007 (and it would appear participated in by our own esteemed Dr A): Annoying creationists - Page 173 - International Skeptics ForumThe patterns and the conclusions people were coming to about our creationist contributor then seem very much what we are seeing here.To quote Kleinman from earlier in the thread: A minimum of 13 years he’s apparently been banging this drum, and the multi billion dollar drug companies (who would make the corporate killing of all corporate killings with a more effective cancer treatment) have not been beating a path to his door.One wonders why that could be.

The other analogy I quite like is when you tell someone that you can guarantee doing something which has a 1 in 8.0658175e+67 chance of occurring. And then you shuffle a deck of cards.

Let’s see if we can list what constitutes evidence for you:1. Whatever was written down thousands of years ago, by some members of a specific tribe of Bronze Age hunter gatherers (but not anything written down by any other of the local tribes of Bronze Age hunter gatherers whom they used to go around merrily murdering and raping; nor anything written down by any other ancient people around the world) - and moreover, (I’m guessing) a very specific translation into English of those writings.Have I missed anything ?If I have, and you want to add to the list, be careful - there are bear traps....

No need to worry - I may have secured you the recognition you so clearly crave - I’ve given your name to Merriam Webster so that they can refine their definition of hubris.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Let’s pick a few children’s congenital diseases at random then:Long segment tracheal stenosis. When a child has tracheal stenosis the tracheal rings are often fixed and O-shaped, so do not allow for growth and this can cause life-threatening respiratory distress.Primary ciliary dyskinesia. PCD is an inherited condition where the cilia (microscopic hairs that beat in the airways) do not develop normally and this may affect the lungs, nose, sinuses and ears. Because of this, respiratory infections are very common in these children and these may be life-threatening.Neuroblastoma. Neuroblastoma is a rare and aggressive childhood cancer and the cause is unknown. It is the most common solid tumour in children after brain tumours.So god designed intelligently ? What are the above examples of ? Mistakes or cruelty ?

Nope. If your god is omnipotent and good, he has the power to change things (or indeed set them up in the first place) so that innocent children don’t suffer.If he doesn’t, then either he is not omnipotent, or he is not good.

Yes.

I have no belief in a creator. How can I have respect or otherwise for something in which I have no belief ?

Yeah, I’m in the same boat with Allah, Buddha, Brahma, Zeus and the Tooth Fairy.

I’m not a scientist, so I wouldn’t presume to try to any level of detail, when we have several scientists on this thread who can explain it perfectly well.I am, however, a reasonably intelligent chap, and a fan of Frasier, and one of the many lines I really enjoy is one uttered by one of Frasier’s guests at a cocktail party he threw:

Oh the sources of my wisdom are far wider than sitcoms. I listen, read and learn. I am a sceptic, but not a cynic - a respecter of differing opinions, where the holders of those opinions are themselves respectful and receptive.Frasier is simply one of many sources of entertainment and laughter in my life.You are another.