Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

It is not my claims. TOE does involve a belief in the way evolving happened in the past. It does involve a specific set of beliefs used on all evidences such as the fossil record. In fact it is nothing more at all. Please be honest. If there is a mod out there who is a good honest atheist, rather than a phoney believer, please take over here...thanks.

Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Edited by dad, : No reason given.

dad writes: Always good talking as if you have won or have something to say after someone gets banned eh?

I know you're confused and bewildered by time so I'm sure you won't be impressed by me saying that my comments was the day before he was suspended (not banned).

But I'm sure you're right, EVC clocks had a different nature yesterday.

Clocks based on assuming nature was the same are what science is set to. Apologies for mistaking the post...

Edited by dad, : No reason given.

That is not an assumption. That is fact, and you can not show otherwise, can you.

You still have nothing.

Kleinman writes: Why not?

You claimed you learned it in school.

It's quite true that there are various "beliefs" involved in science. For example, we assume that the same physical laws hold true in one place as in another. This is essential because how could we study, say, electrons if they behaved differently in Bob's lab than in Carol's? We also assume that the same physical laws hold true in different times. Otherwise Ted's laboratory would get different results today than it did yesterday.

But these are reasonable assumptions, aren't they?

Those aren't actually bare naked assumptions. They are tested as much as possible in an ongoing way. So far they are reasonable conclusions not assumptions.

They are "conclusions" in that what we have observed so far agrees with them.

However, when we study something that we have not (yet) observed quite so thoroughly (a far-off nebula or an ancient fossil) we have to make the "assumption".

Sarah Bellum writes: They are "conclusions" in that what we have observed so far agrees with them.

That's what science is all about - drawing the best conclusions from what we know so far.

Lenski's research has received considerable attention, including lengthy discussion in Carl Zimmer's book on E. coli, Microcosm, and in Richard Dawkins' book on the evidence for evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth. Included in Dawkins' discussion was a description of the dialog Lenski had in 2008 with Andrew Schlafly, creator of Conservapedia, which Schlafly initiated as a reaction to reports of Lenski's description of the evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one of the long-term evolution experiment populations. These same findings were later cited by the creationist Ken Ham in a debate over evolution with Bill Nye. Lenski strongly criticized Ham's citation of his work and the conclusions Ham drew from it.