Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

What you are advocating is actually a course in comparative religion taught within the discipline of anthropology.If you teach it within the discipline of theology you are more liable to get a whole different approach, and one that is neither based on empirical evidence nor impartial.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The claims for a young earth and a global flood have both been disproved.Early geologists, seeking to prove the global flood, gave up just about 200 years ago.The evidence that the flood did not occur as described, about 4,350 years ago, and that the earth is old is overwhelming. The only ones who can't see that evidence are bible literalists.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Absolutely wrong! Particularly so in areas where there is no monumental architecture or major ruins, or no rock art.Many of the finds in some areas may be made by non-professionals, but the discoveries that advance the archaeological profession are not so often made in the field, and are rarely made by non-professionals. In the field you may excavate some nice artifacts and features, and in some areas run across ruins or rock art or whatever. But you are confusing finds with meaningful increases in knowledge. Finds by themselves lack context, and are of limited use.The true discoveries are made by figuring out what those finds mean. The finds are only a means to an end, and that end is knowledge. You need to study the finds, date them, perform any of several hundred tests on them, or devise some new tests, correlate all of the results with each other and with results from other finds and other areas. They you can place those finds in a context and give them meaning. Only when you have some context will you have a good idea what the particular find means and will have contributed to our knowledge of the past.Perhaps you should study some archaeology before pretending to be one.(And yes, I know there are different kinds of archaeology and methods vary from area to area.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What I think, after reading this amazing post, is that you should seek professional help.You appear to have lost all touch with reality.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

{Hide off-topic reply to non-topic blather message - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide something.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If this is an example of the type of religion you want taught in schools, you have provided the best evidence for laughing you and it right out of the schools.It is gibberish.Your post is so confused on the timelines and events that it is not even worth responding to. You appear to simply have no frame of reference with which to address a detailed and scientific response.I suggest that you first try to unlearn old falsehoods, then you might be able to more adequately evaluate new information.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That sounds like a Comparative Religions course.If it is taught as Anthropology that would be very useful.And it should not be taught as Religious Studies. As it is often practiced, I think that approach would also introduce a bias.Further, it should not be taught by a leader of any particular religion, as that could introduce a bias. One possible exception might be a Jesuit, as they are generally very well educated and usually can present cogent arguments for a variety of positions.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I would not favor such a teaching staff, as it does not have the analytical and hands-off/disinterested party approach that really pays off in this circumstance. In a worse-case scenario it could become a competition to capture new members for one's beliefs.That is why I suggested the approach be Anthropology. (I had such a course in grad school, but the subject matter could be adjusted to other levels.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Arch -- your post is a total non-sequitur. It has no relationship whatsoever to my post.My post dealt with a potential curriculum and approach for a Comparative Religion course.Care to try again?Edited by Coyote, : formatting

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There is quite a difference between studying comparative religions, which is often done in Anthropology, and the type of religion which fundamentalists want taught in school (i.e., indoctrination favoring only their particular brand of religion).

Your opinion is wrong. It does not have a valid description of origins. Its description is contradicted by the evidence.And please, do not use the term "theory" to describe ID. It is not a theory, but a religious belief trying (unsuccessfully) to masquerade as science. But which alternative has evidence to support it? Certainly not the second one.

New ideas are welcome here, but in the Science Forums they are not immune to skepticism. If they fail to measure up, you must expect that they will be criticized.The topic is teaching evolution vs. religion in school. You clearly are coming down on the side of teaching religion in public schools (whether as creationism, or it's illegitimate step-child, ID). But, unfortunately, what you are doing is arguing a flat earth--you are arguing for a belief that has been found to be without evidence. And this is what you want taught in schools? No problem. Just pick a representative one, close to the topic, and respond to that. It is encouraged that we remain on-topic here so feel free to just respond to those posts to you which are on-topic. Evolution is based on evidence. Religions require faith because they don't have the evidence to support their claims. If you, as a religious believer, truly had evidence supporting your beliefs you would be trumpeting that evidence from the highest towers. Instead, you (generic "you") have to try and sneak your beliefs into schools under the guise first of creation "science," then of the "science" of intelligent design, then as some sort of "critical thinking." And you do so by sneaking believers onto school boards rather than presenting evidence in peer-reviewed journals. The whole sordid story came out in the Dover trial. A theory is the single best explanation for a particular series of facts. It must explain all of those facts, not be contradicted by any relevant facts, and make successful predictions. And then it is just a theory--not a "proven fact" as creationists usually demand. In science proof is not the "gold" standard--theory is."Observational science" is just a creation of creationists seeking to denigrate those sciences that contradict their religious beliefs. And true science, or should I say, TRVE science, is what agrees with your religious beliefs? All science relies on the scientific method, and no part of science is more true than any other as science is not aimed at truth, or TRVTH. This is just another false definition propounded by creationists in an effort to shore up their beliefs and to denigrate any field of science which contradicts their beliefs.Here is a good way of describing this issue:

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

In other words, you were looking for a site to rubber-stamp your religious beliefs, and maybe even tell you that they represented good science.Sorry, try down the hall. We have Forums on this site devoted to religious belief and biblical study.But you have posted to the Science Forums part of this site, and here you are expected to bring evidence to support your claims.

Actually I do science for a living. Your opinion has not been shown to be correct. The false dichotomy between "true" science and some other type is a creationist fantasy. Our poster Faith has often disparaged those sciences which disagree with her beliefs as not being "true" sciences. Creating a dichotomy between observational sciences and some other kind seems to be a part of the same creationist technique.

It is not the number of assumptions that matters, rather it is the quality of those assumptions.

So, complexity is enough to turn ID, which is simply religion playing hide-the-god, into a science?And what would you use as a textbook, the bible?Regarding ID as a science, see the decision from the Dover trial. That should disabuse you of that notion.