Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Colbard writes:
It does not mean that science cannot be married to creationism, it just means that the conclusions drawn which contradict the Bible have to be left out.I agree, they choose what is convenient and that is not science. The following statement, however, found on p.399 of The Urantia Book has been substantiated by science; it means that the evolution of life was programmed. Urantia is Earth and the book was published in 1955."The original life plasm of an evolutionary world must contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and for all subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications."There are scientists who share this view - e.g., the chemist and computer scientist Donald E. Johnson's "Programming of Life" - some of whom I use in my blog at ‘ to substantiate it. Edited by Rodnas, : spelliing error

In Prgramming of Life, using his "legitimate credentials in Information Sciences and in chemistry" Donald E. Johnson provides scientific proof that substantiates the thesis that life was programmed. I know his religious belief but the book is only about the substantiating science. I disagree with his religious belief but use the science to substantiate my belief. Edited by Rodnas, : spelling

Thank you for the info about quotes. Sorry, I did not mean to advertise only provide another source material. I don't know that the concept was invalidated and I am presenting the latest scientific proof on the subject which validates it .

t's not a tautology. Obviously, in order for life to evolve as it did the original genome had to contain all the components for it but it also had to have the program to make it happen. A bunch of parts in a toy box will not become a toy until someone, reading the instructions, assembles them. The program contained all the instructions for all future developmental variations (ontogeny) and subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications (phylogeny). HOX genes are a case in point.

Mutations were also programmed. In describing evolution from the earliest life forms to man, on many occasions the book lists a sudden mutation as having been the cause of fundamental evolutionary changes, e.g., the sudden appearance of the first bird from a dinosaur egg and the sudden appearance of the first placental mammal.BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone here, only providing the latest scientific information that supports the non-Darwinian view.

Ringo writes: Here is a quote from Johnson's Programming of Life: "All components of matter arise by spontaneous processes that do not require sequences and codes, whereas all components of life arise by manufacturing processes that do require these entities. It is the sequences and codes that makes the difference between living and dead matter. It is semiosis (symbol translation system) that does not exist in the inanimate world, and that is why biology is not a complex form of chemistry."Chemistry does nor require a code but biochemistry does, that's is the fundamental difference and a code requires a programmer. One generation.
We are straying from the main issue. You can find answers to your questions at Just a moment...I have no idea how anything was programmed; I am reporting on what some experts in the field are saying and that is that the original genome was programmed. Here is what the biologist John A. Davison asserts: "The information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg." Edited by Rodnas, : No reason given.Edited by Rodnas, : Added content.

NoNuke writes: Your first step should be to read Gerard Battail's "Information Theory and Error-Correcting Codes in Genetics and Biological Evolution" (2008) in which the existence of actual programming codes is proposed, explained and justified. Obviously, you have already made up your mind, as it seems the case with others, so I don't see an intelligent, open-minded discussion possible here, just ad hominem put downs. Typical.The topic here is about creation/evolution, I offer scientific information about creation, it is rejected a priori by ignoramuses like you (read my books), so the discussion ends here.Happy Holidays.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

I can answer your questions but they are off topic. The programming of life or not is the topic, that is all.

It is not a question of teaching religion, it is a question of teaching the science that substantiates creationism. Darwinism is already being taught in schools and the science is full of holes. However, a civil discussion is impossible here as the opposition is resorting to ad hominem ridicule and put downs. The believers in a round Earth were also ridiculed by the ignoramuses and the same thing is happening here, but Darwinism will eventually be debunked because it cannot prove life's origin, only speculate, and that's not science."The information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg." Developmental Biologist John A. Davison,, in "Evolution as a Prescribed Process" Edited by Rodnas, : Added content.Edited by Rodnas, : text corrected

The information was substantiated but rejected a priori. I was told to catch up on my reading, I say the same to you. Obviously, as an ignoramus, you are not interested in the information I provided so discussion is no longer possible.Good bye and good riddance, arrogant and ignorant.P.S. What are you a doctor in?.Edited by Rodnas, : added content

The title of this thread should be: Education and Creation/Evolution (as long as it is Evolution.) Yes, with closed-minded, opinionated ignoramuses like you it is a waste of time. I just asked Admin how to end my membership here so I don't have to read posts by insulting trashtalkers.

I presented evidence, you just did not read it because you are not interested in anything that contradicts your view so you are blind to mine.Read/study the following:
Donald E. Johnnson "Programming of Life." (2007) Rejected for his religious view.
Gerard Battail "Information Theory and Error-Correcting Codes in Genetics and Biological Evolution" (2008)
John A. Davison "Evolution as a Prescribed Process."Study these, then we talk, ignorant.Again: What are you a DOCTOR in?Edited by Rodnas, : spelling

The title should allow for the creationist view, but it's rejected a priori. I presented supporting evidence but it is not considered. What discussion is possible under these conditions? None. Just be honest and say you are not interested in creationism and stop pretending. Edited by Rodnas, : added text

I am leaving when ready. You may ban me if you wish, I'll gladly leave this nest of mind f#@*&^s.

Ed Babinski writes: Since biology is not a complex form of physics it requires a code/language with meaning in order to carry out its functions of mitosis and meiosis. At least that is what biologists are saying. The question then is weather this code was programmed in the original DNA or if it was a process of natural self-organization. Whatever the case, would there be a problem in teaching this science in schools? Edited by Serapatatia, : No reason given.Edited by Serapatatia, : No reason given.Edited by Serapatatia, : Added text.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.