Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

You're not very self-aware, are you?You also don't seem to know what "closed-minded" means. You have been asked to prevent evidence for your views. That's perfectly open-minded. That would be the quintessence of open-mindedness. What you apparently want is for us to accept your views without you putting forward any evidence for them. That would not be open-mindedness. That would be idiocy.

OK, let's do that.Evolution should be taught in schools because the people who object to it are a bunch of halfwits who don't even know what the word "evidence" means, let alone being able to produce any.This generalization is admittedly based on a small sample.

Why do you say that? We can, after all observe evolution by natural selection. But we have never observed evolution driven by a supreme consciousness any more than we have observed evolution caused by Magic Evolution Pixies. Clearly it is less of a stretch to ascribe evolution to a process which we can observe causing evolution than to a hypothetical entity that we have never observed causing evolution; just as, for example, it is less of a stretch to attribute lightning to electricity, which we know about, than to Thor, whose very existence is questionable.

You are telling stupid lies again, David.Whom do you hope to deceive? Granted, you are grossly, pitifully stupid, but even you must have noticed that you're not fooling anyone.

If the majority of people think something untrue, that's not a reason to teach it, that's a reason to din the opposite forcefully in their ears. For example if most people think the capital of Australia is Sydney that's not what we should teach in schools, instead we should make a special point of telling them that it's Canberra.

The people who know the facts.Just because there are two positions on what the capital of Australia is, that doesn't mean that it's actually in doubt, or that the two beliefs are equally valid. There is actual information to be had on the subject. And the same is true of genetics, geology, paleontology, etc.

You see this is exactly why your crap can't be taught in schools. And since most beliefs are incompatible, most beliefs must be wrong. It's like being wrong is a common denominator. It's on a par with the evidence that there are no flying pigs.

So for example when you consider Mohammad's report of speaking to the Angel Gabriel and to the God of Abraham, you think this should confirm your belief in spirits?Why? Do you think that what he claimed was true?

If it's so easily done, why don't you do it? We'll watch.

As with so many creationists, your prescriptions for how science should be done would annihilate the whole of science. Just so you can ignore dendrochronology! Really, couldn't you find some way to question the results of dendrochronology that doesn't involve attacking it for being science?