Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Hi, Maezeppa, welcome to EvC.You are most correct. School science classes are for teaching science. I, personally, do not see any reason for having any religious classes in school. This, to me, detracts away from the training/teaching/learning a secular public school needs to provide for the student to fit and succeed in this culture. Home and church can provide any religious training necessary, though I don't believe any such training is good for the human species considering the problems we face with where we are and where we're going.At the top of the screen under the banner there is a command bar. If you hit "All Topics" you will see a list of all the most recent topics with the latest and greatest messages for the present on-going discussions. Come on over and join in.Again, welcome to EvCEdited by AZPaul3, : spl'n as usual.

Ya got me. I surrender.

In my English class we digested Paul Simon's "I am a rock" and Paul McCartney's "Eleanor Rigby."So my point remains since the "fact" is, CS, you went to the wrong school.

All of it. Wow.So you actually believe that there were no processes in the past that left any evidence of their workings in the present? That if any of the physical constants were significantly different in the recent past (geologically speaking) we could not see those differences in what they left behind?How utterly ignorant.

I have a poster who spouts inanity without any evidence or reason. What makes you think this "nature" was any different from today? or 200,000 years ago? or 200 million years ago? And your evidence for this is what? You ever hear about Minnesota Woman or Kennewick Man or The Anzick boy? Considerably older then Noah, DNA and all.I know, I know, scientists couldn't possibly sequence their DNA because YOU can't comprehend the science.

And your evidence for this is what? You have no idea how these datings (multiple datings from multiple lines of inquiry) are achieved, do you. You do not know the science involved but it doesn't matter. The datings knock your crackpot conjectures into the trashcan and so must be wrong. Problem is, creation, you haven't ANY evidence against the datings that would challenge the multiple lines of independent scientific evidence FOR the datings. You are left with pissing into the wind. Got some on your leg there, buddy.

quote:

---

So you actually believe that there were no processes in the past that left any evidence of their workings in the present? That if any of the physical constants were significantly different in the recent past (geologically speaking) we could not see those differences in what they left behind?

---

Care to actually answer the questions?

Stellar evolution.
- Hydrogen gas cloud
- Gravitational attraction, gravitational collapse
- Nuclear fusion
- Stellar nucleosynthesis
- Nuclear fuel exhaustion
- Stellar core collapse, nova, supernova, hypernova
- White dwarf, neutron star, black hole.Biological evolution
- Chemical replication, RNA, DNA
- Descent with modification
- Reproductive isolation
- SpeciationChemical evolution
- Quantum Field Theory
- Stellar nucleosynthesis
- Fine structure constant
- Electron bonding
- Molecular synthesisWhat else you want to know?

Wow, are you behind. Haven’t kept up on your studies. Speciation has many more than two vectors. First, all speciation, all change, is by modification and natural selection. Your question confuses the type of change, the method of change and the rate of change.Look up allopatric speciation vs peripatric vs parapatric vs sympatric speciation.Then look up the methods of natural selection we see in populations like the Wallace Effect, ecological selection, sexual selection, polyploidy speciation, hybrid speciation and gene transposition.Finally, understand that the rate of change varies all over the map for every population on the planet. The rate of speciation is dependent on the selective pressures the population lives under and the type(s) of selective pressures being applied. Phyletic gradualism and Punctuated equilibrium exist at opposite ends of a sliding spectrum, not as separate binary operations.Know your subject before coming in here with all your bluster. Learn something first. Of course they don’t agree. This is complex science not your grade-school simplistic ignorance. Any controversy comes in with how much of what is evident in this complex mess due to lack of details and pretty much within a very narrow set of extremely complex details. As details become known the consensus solidifies. This is the good thing, the fun thing, in science. This is its strength. You need further study here on how and why science is conducted the way it is. Bullshit. This is science. We don’t do proof. We do the preponderance of the evidence, the weighing of the facts.The preponderance of the evidence, the great weight of all the known facts, shows that our Theory of Evolution is, by far, the most comprehensive and consistent explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. No proof necessary. We don’t know for certain though we have some good promising hypotheses. As for duplication, hey our chemistry professor, Mother Nature, took ~350 million years to figure that out the first time. We’ve only been at this for 70+-. Give us some time, we’ll figure it out. Patience, candle2, patience.Besides, this lack of knowledge has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. The ToE starts once abiogenesis has completed doing its thing.In the meantime, if you want to try and hide your god in this hole of ignorance in our knowledge then please do. Just so he understands he is taking up temporary residence only and will have to move on to hide in some other ignorant hole soon enough. Again, we use those three little words you creationists so hate, We don’t know, yet.And again, this has no bearing on the efficacy, the strength of evidence, for the ToE.Doesn’t matter if DNA used xanthine in place of adenine or used methyluracil in place of cytosine or if the codon CAG tagged glutamine or tagged histidine instead. Whatever the code turned out to be the processes of the ToE would be the same. While the code is vital to its functioning, the specifics of how the code came to be is of no concern for evolution. Once a code, of whatever chemicals, however devised, was produced then evolution had something to work upon. Decent with modification. Mutation with natural selection. The human 3 billion base pairs? That’s small. The Amoeba Polychaos dubium has 670 billion base pair in its genome.The size of a genome is the result of numerous additions, deletions, insertions, duplications, combinations. In addition to things like single-nucleotide polymorphisms, copy errors and frame shift errors, these are all considered mutations to a genome.No one wrote a genome. The genome evolves along with the population it inhabits. It’s all out on the web. Take some time and look it up. You can learn all about how genomes grow, contract and change with examples.Here’s one to help get you started: Gene duplication as a mechanism of genomic adaptationOh, you don’t know the half of it.Mutations come in three flavors: The good (beneficial), the bad (deleterious) and the not ugly, just don’t care, yet (neutral)Neutral mutations are the majority and don’t do anything cept sit there waiting to see what happens next. They may sit there for a long time doing nothing or they may be mutated out of the genome, become beneficial because of some other mutation or environmental change or become deleterious for similar reasons.Beneficial mutations may seem rare but in a population of billions with an average (human) mutation rate of 100 per child beneficial mutations enter the population quite readily in droves by the millions.Deleterious mutations are the bad ones. These are the killers. There are lots of them. More than you realize.In the human population deleterious mutations kill more humans than are born. Estimates are that genetic mutation kills upwards of 50% of all conceptuses while the mother never even knew she had conceived. Add to this the number of miscarriages and the number of stillbirths and ... well ...Evolution is a real bitch.Look it up. We’re not hiding anything here. It’s all out there waiting for you to learn. Again, like the genome, cell complexity evolved through descent with modification and natural selection. And like the evolution of all life, it had more failures, setbacks, false starts and blind alleys than successes. And, yet, here we are.Here. Read up on it. The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI BookshelfIn conclusion, we don’t have to prove to you that evolution is true. All we need do is show a preponderance of the evidence in favor of the mechanisms and processes of the Theory of Evolution. We’ve done that in spades. Look up all the different facets, all the different processes and mechanisms that are the Theory of Evolution. See the overwhelming body of evidence that supports the theory. Read ‘em and weep.If you think you can disprove any of the facts in evidence for evolution then have at it.But, understand, candle2, that lacking sufficient knowledge of some specific topic is not disproof, especially in areas where evolution is not involved like abiogenesis.Insisting on proof and duplication is the creationist displaying his own ignorance of the subjects involved and the creationist’s simplistic childish view of the complexity of reality. It make you look really stupid.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You have no idea what those processes are do you. You have no idea how they work, how we know how they work, what the facts are, the hard real-world demonstrable, repeatable, verifiable facts, do you.You wouldn’t know a clade from a nested hierarchy would you. You don’t know your haploid from your diploid do you. Or how we measure the fine structure constant or why it is important to valence electrons do you.And without knowing the subject, the reasons, the facts of how we know, the deep detailed study of these phenomena, without any reason other than your religious naysaying, your emotional wishful thinking, you have the audacity to come in here and tell us we are wrong?You have even less authority than a flat earther riding a unicorn through the Elysian Fields or an alien abductee spouting autodynamics at a Tupperware party. One of the few things your senseless bible got right. In fact the earth is 4.5 billion years old but you have no idea how we know this do you. You haven’t a clue to the facts, the hard in the lab real facts, we use to arrive at this number do you. And Douglas states that Earth will be destroyed to make room for a new hyperspace bypass (HGTTG, pg 22). The creation account is to be view from a rubber room standing in a straight jacket, not viewed from any semblance of sanity. Your god didn’t even know about any other planets and moons in our solar system. These are man’s discoveries. That was the inflaton field. That's a hypothetical scalar field that is theorized to drive cosmic inflation in the very early universe.As hypothetical as the inflation field is there is way more evidence for its existence than there is for the existence of your god. Even as crazy as they are already, you realize that no one else in creationism believes in any of the rest of your crap, right?And BTW, your bible, that long embellished re-telling of local fairy tales from a 3000 year-old tribe of goat herders, is not evidence of anything ever. Even the most mundane statements in your crazy book, like the existence of sand, needs independent corroboration before it can be considered evidence. And frankly, it is the independent resources that will be considered as evidence not your useless supposititious bible. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This is a science thread. There cannot be any such thing as blasphemy.Blasphemy is a religious stupidity to stifle other religious opinions. It holds no place in a science thread.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Can't disrespect something that has no respect to diss. Religion is the greatest evil ever to infect the mind of humanity. Your scripture is evil in thought and deed. It is lie masquerading as truth to enslave the mind.There is no utility for humanity, there is no relevance to reality, there is no good for the world in your scripture or your religion. There is nothing but blood, pain and death in its words. Enslavement is its goal.Your book is nothing but an excuse to subjugate the people, enrich your priests and to kill the minds of the children. Your own conception of your god is as a bloodthirsty monster with the entrails of the innocent still in its teeth.Your scripture is evil and is condemned to be ignored and forgotten. It means nothing. It deserves nothing ... especially respect.Now, getting back to the subject ...What makes you think "the nature" changed some time in the past?We say it has not changed because we have no evidence that it coulda, shoulda, woulda at anytime in the last 13.7 billion years.If you have evidence that it coulda, shoulda, woulda, then present it ...or ...STFU!Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Question, jar.Are these not associations of churches instead of separate cults? Couldn't a specific church belong to many of these or are these separate doctrines?

Yes, facts are acceptable in a science thread. And "blasphemy" can only exist in the minds of the weak. It has no reality in this universe.As far as hatred for your beliefs ... did that sneak in there somewhere?Gee. How in heaven's name did that happen?

Thousands of mathematicians, thousands of geneticists, thousands of evolutionary biologists the world over and none of them have figured out that their ideas are all wrong.Must be really disheartening to go through all that schooling, all those years in the lab and at the computer crunching numbers, working all those years building skills in your discipline and reputation with your colleagues just to find out some upstart internet nobody says you've been so wrong all this time.The real hurt for you, I'm sure, is that you have to come here to EvC, to an amateur general discussion site, to push your novel views because you can't hold your own against the professionals on the dedicated discipline sites.

And these startling revelations of everyone but you being wrong fall on deaf ears here and everywhere you go.That should say something to you, but your delusions are deep set, not to be moved by fact or reality.Keep up the work, Richa ... uh ... Kleinman. No one here nor anywhere is buying your faulty logic, your errant math and your insistence on superiority. You've got a long long way to go.BTW, The "real scientists" since before Aristotle knew the earth was round. It was your fellow delusionals that insisted otherwise in the face of what the science already knew. Just like your present contention.Ego-driven, delusional, anti-science, anti-reality. You need to go have that looked at.