Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

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 am familiar with the nonsense and bullshit proposed by Creationists. Perhaps you might have something better than their absurdities and lies.They count on the wilful ignorance of creationists to get by with such con jobs.Can you do better?

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.

More accurately, science is a method for gathering and analyzing data, and for learning about the natural world.Scientists never "bow down and begin worshiping as the truth" what science finds. We realize that what science has found is subject to change or improvement as more information comes in and as new or better theories are developed to explain that data.Creationists, on the other hand, are looking for absolute TRVTH, dogma, and unchanging beliefs. Sorry, try down the hall. That's not what science is about at all.And creationists shouldn't try to assume that their way of doing things applies to science as well.

So instead of providing a model or method as expected you simply try to palm the pea.That is normal from the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

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.

If someone disagrees with present science, they better have evidence to back up their claims, and not be relying on old tribal myths.Unfortunately, creationists don't do this.

There is no evidence for that.Google "channeled scablands." Those floods were three times older than the claimed global flood, but we can see the evidence clearly.The claimed global flood, much larger and much more recent is nowhere to be found.

Sorry but once again that is just nonsense.What flood model can account for the layers found at Dover sorted by species?

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.

So you admit that there is currently no flood model that can explain the Dover cliffs.But that is just one very small proof that the Biblical floods never happened; there are a couple hundred years worth of other such proofs.