Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

I suppose a majority vote can define a belief, but am wondering how a majority could decide how old something is based on any sort of science or critical thought.

Personally, I believe that education should be as true as we can practically make it. It should discuss all of the religions, for example. I agree in that I believe that there is one truth---which is what we all may find out once we die--if then.Former EvC members Robin Rohan and Buzsaw may have found out what is really true---then again, maybe they just died and there is no afterlife.I also agree that there is by definition a true science, but what makes you think they are not pursing that now? After all, what hidden agenda or ulterior motive could current science have--if not to further educate and enlighten humanity?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Why would God want to trick us?

While I agree that reasoning should most definitely be part of n educational curriculum, I would rather see faith taught(or expounded upon) in church and at home. It would not make sense to teach about something for which there was no evidence nor proof.

Basically, the cure is Jesus. I agree....but not in school.

True. The criteria for being a good and wise teacher involves logic, reason, and reality,however. A wise teacher will not simply teach from one book. (not even 66)

I am a born again believer. I have a personal daily relationship with Jesus Christ. Based on that criteria, I should be able to know what you know and/or be able to interpret it. Right?

I have been at EvC for ten years, Colbard. The debates that I have had here have been varied. Sometimes they frustrate me. Often they challenge me, should I so choose to expand my knowledge or change my mind. In my opinion, there is a difference between debating with someone whom I do not know(in an internet familiarity sense) and with someone whom I do know.(such as jar or ringo) When we debate here, we are seeking to understand the world view and personality of our opponent--not simply to "win" the debate but so as to further understand how they think and why they think the way that they do. It is my observation that the method of thought and the approach used to formulate an individual point of view differs between evolutionists(in general) and Biblical creationists(in general.) Your opponents tend to look at the evidence and they employ critical thinking skills. They do this to such a high degree that they rarely become believers in God such as you may be. (Though there are exceptions to every rule) Belief does not need evidence. (some critics would disagree, however) The essence of belief does not normally engage in serious critical thinking nor the scientific method since these tools would assign a permanent skepticism and doubt into the belief...which believers quite naturally would want to avoid. Speaking strictly of subjective((individual and internally verified) evidence, I might agree with you. Certainly there would be no reason for me to disagree.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head! Surely there are better ways that we humans have for learning about our faith, our beliefs, and also in understanding science for what it is---not a religion nor agenda but simply a disciplined means of thought and reason.(with concrete results)

quote:

---

The other question than can be asked is what I call the "Bill Nye Question" (from the debate with Ken Hamm):

​

What will make you change your mind?

​

Nye's (and my) answer is evidence, objective empirical evidence, that invalidates previous scientific theory.

​

Ken Hamm's answer was "nothing" -- and that is typical creationist belief, not bound by evidence or reality.

---

For me personally, evidence wont likely have me change my mind on a macro level concerning my belief and philosophy, but it well may change my mind on a micro level. What would more likely have to change for me to stop being a believer is my heart. My mind is always evaluating every possible bit of information, who said it, what their motive or intention was, and how belief fits in with human interaction and communion.

How are you doing this morning, Colbard?

He (she?) will likely argue that despite all having different beliefs, everyone "believes" in this false religion known as science...and thus get deluded. creation likely believes much as faith does---in a literal Bible, a literal flood, literal Adam & Eve, Whales, snakes, and so on.When it comes to education, however, we need to go with evidence rather than belief. That's my 2 cents.

Apart from picking on each other, science appears to be the common enemy...at least in creations world. I, on the other hand, believe that human wisdom and ego are the common enemies. Problem is, my critics can indict me on the same charge.

Some questions:

What science led us to conclude any difference between where we live (fishbowl) and outside of this?

​

Do we have a measurement as to where the "glass" begins? Is there a point that we have determined to be the edge of this hypothetical fishbowl which you continually mention?

​

Does the Bible mention or imply such a fishbowl?

​

I need to know what you have found about the existence, measure, and scope of this hypothesis.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

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