Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

The Theory of Evolution.

A Theory is an educated guess and Evolution is a term of observation, "we watched the play evolve." We don't know the plot so we make an educated guess about what is happening.

So the T of E is
"the guessing of guessing"
We guess when we don't know, so guessing is a sign of ignorance /not knowing.

So the T of E is
"Not knowing what is not known"

Where should we begin in such a study?

In other words "if you want to pass school you'll have to guess the way we guess, and not do your own guessing."

That's what school is anyway I suppose.

Edited by Colbard, : add

I made a comment on the basic English meaning of those words, not necessarily your version or a scientific term.
I know the scientific terms and how they are used. I was showing that in choosing those terms they have a misnomer if they are going by the plain text.
In school we use the terms in their basic form first, so if the T of E is taught in schools it should come under better terms to describe the horrid thing.

Edited by Colbard, : yo

Your red faced vein popping speeches does the evolution cult justice.

Are you sure you are not religiously in love with this thing called evolution?
You know - the dogma that tells you that you are nothing but swill in pond of bacteria? And that every time you eat a chicken burger you have an underdeveloped human being in between two slices of bread?

I take it that you are a vegetarian now?

"florid screaming twitching lunacy"
That's more like it, but belongs in good prose.

From what you have demonstrated, teaching evolution involves stomping on anything that contravenes the idea, and airing out your laundry in public.
Not good for schools at all.

"Now children, today we are going to look at Evolution.
Life began by an angry wart turning itself into an eye.
Your greatest grandparents swung by their tails and later ate mammoths, but we are so much smarter than all previous species.
The sun is going to explode, burn up the earth and turn into a red dwarf,
write that down..."

RAZD said, going independent research is one way to test the validity of your argument. Don't you agree?

Absolutely, but not too independent, it's a balance of self and others. I like your reply.

Sermonizing on Evolution is a contradiction.

You can present what one regards as fact, but to be emotive or moralistic maybe leaning towards the dark ages. We don't want to be preaching evolution.

Making me out to be of the religious stock is untrue and unfair, since I have only been arguing the case that if the T of E is going to be taught, then it's basic name and philosophies should be scrutinized. Not all who oppose evolution are bias towards the church's agenda.

Children are not going to relish the long version of things, they'll summarize evolution down fairly quickly, to - "the world was filled with dinosaurs and we are all going to die like them, unless we become fighters"
Hence the popularity of the game themes based on fighting monsters, which takes up most of their home time.

RAZD writes: You can also copy and paste what you are quoting rather than retyping it -- I did that in orange -- that avoids typos and accusations of misrepresentation.

You're a kind bloke

RAZD writes: -And what do you do when the independent research shows your opinion to be faulty?

Then it's the independent v's the majority. What does history show about individuals who stand out from the majority? It' not a criterion for truth but often the case.

Dr Adequate writes: That would pretty much be an argument against trying to teach anything. They're not going to relish the long version of calculus or Spanish verb forms either, but they don't turn everything they hear into stupid nonsense, because they aren't as dumb as you think they are. Also, since dinosaurs were killed by a giant meteorite, the moral an incredibly stupid person would draw from their extinction is that they should wear a hard hat at all times.

True, about children and calculus...
the hard hats (and hi vis clothing) would have saved the dinosaurs, according to the safety authorities.

Dr Adequate writes: No it's not. Most of 'em are loonies. For every Einstein, there's a million idiots and crackpots who think they're the next Einstein. Of course, only Einstein gets mentioned in the books that get written about history, but this is a matter of sampling bias.

That's a good point, but the rabble includes the crackpots in the end, because they don't want to burn at the stake.

... you've given a whole lot of things to think and talk about, which for me would divert from the subject, so for the time being I'll just wait and see where this thread goes.

relax