Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Silly me.

404 Page not found - friendsoftibet.org Mao is the sun.Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.

So an elitist group of scientists reach the unreachable heights of knowledge through scientific method which includes peer reviewing and other intellectual codependent rituals, passing down their treatises to the impoverished vulgate.Then we are supposed teach their enlightened thoughts in school.To quote some of their home hitting truths - "Mars has a history of violence" "The universe will expand then shrink back to nothing" "the universe is filled with dark malevolent forces" "the koalas are wombats that progressed into tree living" "this species of monkeys has offspring with yellow hair so that the parents can find it easily" "Earlier bats used to live on the ground"So what did you say was tribal and mythical?Yes, I must wrong and so contented as well.

I get what you are saying. It is balanced and with best intent, but do you know how creepy both religion and evolution are? And how that both are controlled by spiritually inept men?

Yea, I guess whatever is out there will rightfully belong to education. People need to be informed.
Personally, I think there are two sides to science, the good side and the bad side, just like there is in religion. Both are broad subjects.
However, I much prefer the scientific method of interpretation than the religious way of doing things. Science cannot afford too many hidden agendas.
I believe that there is true religion and true science and that the two are perfectly harmonious. But they are opposite worlds at the moment.

Of course the majority of science is headed for practical value, I don't want to elaborate on my opinions about other agendas and education, because it is political, and as you know that is what has a lot of impact in education. I would rather stick to our shared values and ideas.

No, not at all. If you want to come to the topic unarmed with what creationists teach on floods dynamics, don't expect a catering service.

That's true about some that take the name creationist. In either case the answer to the thread Q is more about method of educating rather than what should be taught, don't you think?

I think you may be too patriotic towards what you see as mainstream science.
When you say that a person is delusional because they Q whatever is passed down from the unquestionable gods of science, it is not scientific or even cool to think like that. Science is a collection agent for whatever people want to learn, and it is a progressive changing thing to which it is never wise to bow down and begin worshiping as the truth.
Don't be so hard up.

You sound threatened by whatever...tooth and nail. I am sorry if you have had to live your life like that to survive. You have obviously witnessed hypocrisy in a big way. The flood is just a decoy topic that has no significance to you or I.

True, so now if someone disagrees with present science, you can only ever say "you are wrong about current theories" but you can never say you are wrong -period.
And the same principle would apply to creationists -"from what I understand from scripture this is so."It's not the kind of platform which people want to stand on is it? We seem to love absolutes.

Re the deposits in Dover, just because there was one massive flood does not mean that it cannot deposit and erode in segments continuously for over a year, which is how long it lasted.

I don't know I would have to visit the place and do the research.

These are the kind of things that students could get into, doing active research. Boring days of reading about someone else's scientific community paid picnic, will cease.

I have done my own studies on the global flood issue in Australian landscapes, but not these particular cliffs. While I am sure of a global flood, I don't know how these deposits took place.We have different points of view, so we could argue "until the cows come home" as you may relate to, but as you said, should we give the answer first and then let them make biased confirmations?That is a good Q, and I struggle with it, because what we believe does come first.Example, a philosophical outlook seems to be the backbone of observation. We see what we believe. If we believe the earth is flat, our eyes confirm it, but if we believe it is round, our eyes also confirm it because we don't see an endless horizon. So what we believe affects what we see and how we see it.
There's an old saying "A wise man's eyes are in his head."So eventually it may come down to what guiding philosophy we have to begin with.Do children already have one by nature or is it acquired?We know the earth is spherical, but there are a lot of things we don't know, and that's where our guiding philosophy takes us further.
I expect that if the philosophy were true, that we would not have a string of rejected theories. But they say this is all part of the process of learning. Or is the philosophy wrong?