Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

A bit confused even if your heart is in the right place. The Supreme Court has not ruled that the public school systems are a system of the federal government. Instead, the Court has ruled that the 1st amendment (and much but not all of the bill of rights) applies to the states and their school systems due to incorporation through the 14th amendment.Were it to be as you said, a state could simply refuse federal intervention in its school system if it wanted to teach religion in schools. And a bunch of states in the deep south would probably choose to do exactly that. No it wouldn't. If done honestly discussing Creationism in science class would probably make Creationism look pretty silly. Also, astrology does not complete with astronomy. There would be little to no problem ridiculing alchemy and astrology in a science course.

Who cares what MTW said? We all know his motivations.Sorry, but no. Science class is about introducing students to the scientific method. Students are taught to accept or reject using the scientific method and about historical applications of the scientific method.I highly doubt that you have the same objections to what is taught in math class. We don't allow students to be be free about whether to apply the Pythagorean theorem to right triangles in plane geometry or about whether the algorithm for long division works.Sorry but making school 'an adventure' does not mean failing to teach students methods for conducting rigorous investigations. Just teaching them facts without doing that would indeed be spoon feeding.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Seriously. Using "boring to Collbard" as a standard for what to teach is complete nonsense. Students can be taught the facts and even the conclusions reached scientifically. That does not stop people like you from rejecting those conclusions.If you had questioned those conclusions in class by putting up the puerile counter proposals you've expressed here, perhaps you would have learned of their weak points and be able to provide better answers, Bored One.

I thought I was following your argument up until this point. Aren't houses normally younger than their foundations? And what's to prevent me from installing an old door in my new house? I understand that people actually do reuse old wooden stuff in their houses.

pointlessEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, and so is an old door.When I was in Northern Va, I used to routinely pass by an unfinished church foundation. The foundation had been laid, and some additional work was done. But all work stopped for years after that point because the church apparently had money issues.If that building is ever completed it may be highly inappropriate to date the building as being the same age as the foundation. The analogy was never any good in the first place. How old are the nails in the hard ware store? Is a dog house or any other house the same age as the nails used for framing? No.

There is also the limitation that carbon is used with iron/steel. At one time steel was used in some US coins, but not in 1958.

So your story was pointless.

How are we supposed to believe anything you say, Colbard? Whatever credibility you had before the coin story, is surely exhausted by now.

Something, yes. But not necessarily the house.The statement below is the one I took issue with. The above statement is not correct.Something in the universe must be as old as the oldest part of the house. But the house itself can be older or younger than some particular part of the house. Your analogy does not work.

That really isn't an analogy at all is it? If you let the house represent the universe, then it would be true that nothing should be older than the house. I agree with that much. But that is because I accept the lesson about the universe.But using a house to teach something about the universe does not work very well because the age of the house is not actually defined as you insist. The foundation can be older than the house. A house can be constructed of older materials, even materials that once formed another house. The age of the house is the date that its construction is substantially complete.Contrast that to the universe where the materials and space were actually born in the same big bang event. No such issue of prior materials and components exists with respect to the age of the universe, particularly if we accept that time itself was created in the BB.What you are doing in this defense of your analogy is forcing the lesson your analogy is supposed to teach. You are insisting on unconventional methods for dating the house because you want to model the universe. Then you are complaining when I point out that we don't determine the ages of houses in the way you describe. You simply cannot date a house based on the age of the boards in a wall. Not necessary at all to assume that. I did use an example of added on stuff, but I also mentioned the nails. And the same counter example exists if the original door of the house is a previously owned door.The age of the universe is a tiny bit older than the primordial hydrogen and helium within it. But the nails, wood, brick, etc for a house may be much older than the house even without considering added on stuff. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What you describing above is exactly the breaking point for your analogy. The universe works that way, yes. But we never build houses that way. Every artificial house is built from external materials. The age of those materials is not the age of the house.And given that your analogy breaks at exactly the point that you are trying to illustrate, your analogy stinks.

What about those times when you make statements that are not even internally consistent? In those case, no additional source is needed as your own statements merely mock themselves It turns out that you are wrong. You are playing in Percy's sandbox, and the rules precede your arrival. All positions in debates in the Science forums are to supported by argument from evidence.The actual problem is that you don't have any evidence for most of the outlandish stuff you say. Nor does there seem to be any requirement that what you say not have contradictions with itself or reality. We just spent half a thread discussing your nonsensical positions about carbon dating a copper coin.If you just want to announce stuff without any fear that it will be contradicted, perhaps your own blog would be a good place for that kind of thing. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm looking forward to seeing your attempts to support your positions with evidence. Isn't that what you told us you would be doing?

All true. But I think Colbard has a point. Despite saying that he was going to try using an evidenced based approach, he really has not shown any signs of doing that. And with respect to his own proposition, he has no intention of defending them.