Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

This is a misunderstanding of science.When scientists investigate an airplane crash, they don't have to repeat the crash to test their conclusions. When scientific methods are used to investigate a crime, they don't have to repeat the crime to test their conclusions.Science does not depend on a repeatability of events. There are lots of non-repeatable events that science studies.What needs to be repeatable, are the methods used within the science. That allows testing of the methodology.

The Clergy Letter Project writes letters for clergy to sign. The particular letter you quote from can be found at The Clergy Letter - from Unitarian Universalist Clergy – An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science.I'm a Unitarian and so feel qualified to comment. The letter is hogwash and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science. There are no "foundational scientific truths" in science. "Foundational truths" implies timelessness, and there are no timeless truths within science. All scientific knowledge is tentative, even the evidence. The closest one can come to a timeless truth in science is that knowledge of the universe in which we live is gained through systematic experiment and/or observation. Knowledge gained in this way is deemed scientific. Because the knowledge was gained through systematic experiment and/or observation. It more sounds like you're describing engineering, which involves practical applications of science.Science is more traditionally divided into the theorists and the experimentalists. It's a back and forth between the two. Sometimes theorists suggest areas in which experimentalists should seek evidence, and sometimes experimentalists find data that they suggest theorists try to explain. There is no hard and fast dividing line between the two. Theorists often find themselves involved in experimentation, and experimentalists must understand a great deal of theory. Sometimes scientists get to run the experiments in the lab under controlled conditions and gather the evidence in real time, and sometimes the experiments are events from the past that took place in the wild and that left evidence behind for later gathering and analysis. When biologists research cellular reproduction they observe mutations. Evidence gathered from the past tells us that life then was also made up of cells and that cellular reproduction then took place pretty much in the same way as reproduction today. Therefore past life also experienced mutations. Mutations cause change over time, and the evidence of the fossil record tells us that past life experienced change over time. Biological change over time is what evolution is. Since mutations are a fact which you presumably accept, you already accept that life changes over time, which is evolution.--Percy

So you want to get rid of evolution. Though you never told us why, which is not surprising since you obviously have to idea yourself.But now you want to also get rid of most other sciences like geology, seismology, archeology, astronomy, astrophysics, biology, meteorology, many parts of physics, etc, all because of a non-requirement that they be able to reproduce everything. Why impose such a non-requirement on science? Applying the same criterion, I'd like to see you reproduce key parts of your religion including the Parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the masses (loaves and fish), a few Resurrections. Why do you get to impose that non-requirement on science and not on your own religion?For that matter, why did you only impose it explicitly to one and only one science (actually, not a separate science but rather a major part of the science of biology), evolution? Why do you have such a hard-on for evolution? We've asked you that question repeatedly, but you always refuse to answer. Do you even know yourself? As a child were you frightened by an old bald man with a long beard? What's going on with you?Look, the simple truth is that creationists are lying to you. And they are grooming you to also be a liar. And they are grooming you to enable them to groom schoolchildren into becoming lying creationists.One creationist lie is to redefine science -- that's the one you have just repeated here and it's an old one, decades old. Another creationist lie that you have swallowed is that science is atheistic and anti-God so you must destroy science education -- though many creationists will waffle on that one because they love their computers and flush toilets too much.I have asked you important questions that you have ignored: from when you last posted (Message 2061 nearly a year ago, I repeated those questions in my Message 2066 and Message 2068. I have even bumped those questions repeatedly for you to answer.They're not "gotcha" questions nor are they any attempt to trap you. Rather, they are intended to get you to think and to finally tell us what no creationist can (because they do not know it themselves), what no creationist could ever dare, what terrifies all creationists: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?Your own refusal to answer those questions, along with the same refusal from all creationists, can lead to only one conclusion: you are promoting lies and deception in order to serve your god. And we all know from Christian doctrine the only Christian god to be served through lies and deception.