Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Hi mram10! Welcome to the forums, I hope you find lots of stuff to talk about.

Let's focus on the last definition.

Why? Just because it can be twisted to slightly support the point you're trying to make? Okay, we'll go with it.

quote:

---

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

---

Gotcha.

Teaching evolution is, in my opinion, teaching religion.

Yes, according to this definition, anyway.
Of course, according to this same definition, the following are all "religions" as well:

-recreational slo-pitch
-Nintendo
-lowering your car chassis
-smoking cigars
-growing your toenails

Are you sure you want to say that each of these "very important to a person or group" items is on par with your religion?
I don't have a religion myself, but if I did, I'd find that sort of lowering-of-the-bar a bit counter-productive and possibly even insulting.

As for ID or creationism, if it has a valid description of origins, then people should be made aware of the differing theories.

Absolutely correct.
Too bad it doesn't have a valid description of origins...

Common sense question: Which is the safer teaching? 1. You are a chemical/biological accident. Upon death you will decompose and cease to exist as an individual. 2. You are a created for a purpose, held accountable for everything you do, etc.

If you're created for a purpose... you are held less accountable for everything you do, etc... you are held less accountable because some of the responsibility will be on the one who created you for whatever purpose they had in mind.

If you are not created for a purpose... then you are held more accountable for everything you do, etc. Because, well, who else would be accountable?

So common sense would tell us: 1.

mram10 writes: This is going to be fun

Yay! I'm glad you're enjoying yourself, hopefully you'll stick around. There's really lots to do around here.

Most that argue against ID or a creation moment are ignorant to what work has been put into it and the logic behind it.

If you have the motivation to try and educate others here about your knowledge, that would be fantastic.

Unfortunately... it would be off-topic in this thread. (This place is pretty strict on staying on-topic in threads... it keeps the place clean).
Fortunately... there's lots of threads where it is on-topic. You can try any of these, or even make your own:

Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Detecting Design
What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
Nature belongs to ID
Evidence to expect given a designer
Intelligent Design vs. Real Science

Feel free to talk about anything you'd like here. Just try to keep in mind how on-topic you are. If you're on-topic... great! Keep going.
If you're not on-topic... that's okay, just make a new thread about your new topic and go from there!

Sadly, I do not have time to respond to all of the replies aimed at me above...

Don't worry about. Anyone who expects you to respond to everything everyone says is being unrealistic. Respond to what you feel is important, and others will follow your lead.

Evolution requires faith...

I suppose that would depend on what you're thinking about when you use the word "Evolution."
What sort of evolution do you think is being taught in schools today that requires faith? Can you give an example?

Oh, and if you're wondering at all how people do all the fancy quote-boxes and stuff, you can always click on the "peek" button in the bottom-right of any message. That will show you what they actually typed in to produce the visuals you see. And that section at the bottom of RAZD's post (Message 99) gives lots of good tips, too.

dwise1 writes: Even if exposing creationists for what they are is not the goal, a good and honest teacher forced into a "balanced treatment" situation could do no less than to present the facts and to show the students what's wrong with the creationist claims.

Right.

Take, for example, the beetle you mentioned earlier and the mixing of their chemicals.
Before the experiment, you (basically) only have Creationist's word vs. Science's word. At this point (if we're being naively fair) it's an even match.

The next honest thing to do, then, is to do the actual experiment to see what happens.

"Oh, look at that... they did not explode." Is all the teacher has to say. Or, really, they can even say nothing at all

I heard the other day that Christmas is over 2 months away.

But how do they know??

No one's ever been into the future before. We haven't even sent a probe one millisecond into the future!
Since we only know where we've physically been... the fishbowl ends at the present time. Predicting the future is extending our fishbowl!

Time could act differently 2 months from meow.
Time could act differently seconds from now!

Christmas could be tomorrow... it could be 10 years from now.
How can we know that time will act the same if we've never been there before? This is crazy talk, people. Wake up!!

Your religious belief that Christmas is 2 months away is nuts!

I'm buying presents right now.
For the next 10 Christmases.
Because I can only act within the fishbowl!!

What a loony.

mike the wiz writes: So it seems to me based on the evidence, there is every reason to disregard abiogenesis as science fiction.

Made me smile

I'd like to say a few things, but it would be more appropriate in your new thread.
Maybe you should chat with Phat just a little bit and get it promoted so you can stand behind your logical proposal?