Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Lovely example of circular reasoning.

Hi Mike That's my point, MIke: at 4 billion years no life but at 3.5 billion years life. We don't know what happened in between. OR a supernatural process (or panspermia?). We don't know.Enjoy

Which god/s? Does history change depending on which religion you believe, which country you are living in?Does China have a different history -- where no world wide floods are mentioned and a different view of the age of the earth -- because they have/had different god/s?Actual history cannot be understood in any depth without evidence. You do not have to agree.Troy was thought to be mythological until evidence was found for it. And that is why we have freedom of religion - for anyone to believe what they want to - here in the US.There is also no freedom of thought when someone's "faith in God and truth is religiously" imposed on others. What I asked for was "Please provide one such example and then show who determined they failed and how they determined it. (Hint: it wasn't by religious belief). Claims are easy to make, can you substantiate them?"Curiously, all you have provided is another in a long list of scientific hypothesis/theory where further evidence showed the hypothesis/theory to be invalid, so it was discarded. This is how science works -- it isn't a failing of science, it is the strength of science, and it is why science is not a belief based system. Science found the error, not religious belief, and science then corrected the hypothesis/theory ... something you never see with religious beliefs. Your lack of understanding of what science is and does leads you to silly conclusions. And assertions of denial are not any argument or evidence to invalidate the science. The only one you are fooling is yourself. You cannot test anything with science when there is no evidence. Science builds a model (an approximation of reality) based on what it knows, making hypothesis/theory to further explain it, making predictions to test those hypothesis/theories to validate or invalidate them, and by removing hypothesis/theory that are invalid improve the model (approximation of reality).Curiously it does not matter how little we know, what matters is that the evidence supports what we know, that science in toto is internally consistent and able to build, test and find new information. Religion and faith based beliefs don't do that, because they think they know the answers. Says the person trying to impose his religious beliefs on science and education. If the actual interstellar medium electron density matches the predicted values, then that will validate the current space-time model of the universe.If the actual interstellar medium electron density differs from the predicted values, then that will mean the current space-time model of the universe needs to be adjusted, modified or discarded.Enjoy

Ancient nations believed in spirits. Not all spirits are of God, but that doesn't mean they were not real.Western history, specifically surrounding Israel and area was totally impacted by prophesy and Scripture. Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt etc. Now if you want to teach Chinese lore in schools in China, fine.Freedom of religion..? More like..'anything BUT Christ'You say 'science builds a model based on what it knows..' Not about the spiritual aspect of life and history! Science plays around way out in left field, ignoring history and evidences, save the little select few sorts of so called evidences it deems acceptable to it's godless belief system.Imposing beliefs..? I say let a majority decide. If they are Christian...let the main thrust be so. I do not like your beliefs imposed.

Science deals with facts, objective empirical evidence, not with fantasy, myth, belief, faith, opinion, imagination, etc. Things that apply to everyone, not just to people who are follows of fantasy, myth, belief, faith, opinion, imagination, etc. ... it excludes concepts that are not fact-based because they cannot be validated.History also deals with facts, objective empirical evidence, not with fantasy, myth, belief, faith, opinion, imagination, etc. Things that apply to everyone. Historical accuracy is subject to validation with facts, objective empirical evidence. History can deal with how beliefs have affected historical behavior but not with whether those beliefs are valid. Ah yes, the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity:

quote:

---

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

​

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

​

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

​

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. ... At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

---

Facts are not subject to popular opinion, they exist and will continue to exist long after beliefs have died.Do you want to vote on whether or not chairs exist? The place to teach religious beliefs is in the respective houses of worship, in the homes of the believers, and in any gathering of believers.Forcing non-believers to be included is imposing beliefs on non-believers, and that is wrong. Says the person who wants to impose his beliefs on science, the universe, and all non-believers in his personal fantasy.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

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.

If they believe it over what you say is the truth, who is to decide? If we want ti impose truth, why not start in the idiocy infested schools in the west? They teach kids that they can pick what sex they want to be and get legally accepted!

Baloney. Science deals in religion. Belief. Godless fable manufacturing. They are in no position to tell any nation that no spirits lived long ago...you kidding? They cannot speak from knowledge on such issues.History is basically the conquering liars having their records exist where maybe the losers had theirs burned or some such. It is not fact. You need to be able to sort through the garbage and find what is fact or fiction. Teaching history cannot be done right without seeing the great underlying force behind it.Forcing anyone to go to school means that they might need to fit in somewhat with the population, one would think.They should not enter an area with a majority believing one way and expect kid glove treatment for their personal belief system.

Nope. This has been explained to you ad nauseum, but it would appear that the only thought process you are capable of understanding is belief based systems. Science is tentative, belief isn't. Science tests the tentative conclusions/predictions to see if they are valid, belief doesn't. Science alters the tentative conclusions when tests show they are invalid, belief doesn't. You have it the wrong way around ... again.They are in no position to say whether spirits lived long ago or not ... because there is a distinct lack of evidence for any such existence. History documents events, including human caused and natural disasters. Evidence of those events validates the history. And that is done by finding evidence that supports the factual parts or contradicts the fictional parts. Evidence is the key, whether it confirms belief or invalidates it. Rational people discard beliefs that are contradicted by evidence (such as the earth is not flat, the earth is not the center of the universe or age of the earth). Human behavior. Indeed. There are options in the US: private schools and home schooling for example.However, I don't think known falsehoods should be taught (Holocaust denial for instance, but also flat earth, geocentric earth, young earth). But they should be able to expect acceptance and respect for their alternative views ... as long as they do not involve known falsehoods.Enjoy

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 cannot explain why science of origins is not belief based. It is. Your opinion cannot change it.The evidence for spirits having lived was that they were known to people then. Science has no ability to confirm or deny. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.History is the story of man. That involves more than ruins.Human behavior is the result of what is in man. One cannot understand sin without understanding creation and God.Private schools? How about if people do not want anything influencing them from the majority, they go private? Meanwhile, one should not have to resort to private education to have majority beliefs included!yOU ARE IN NO POSITION TO TELL ANYONE WHAT FALSEHOOD IS.

It isn't. Your opinion cannot change it.People with different beliefs - Christian, Muslim, atheists, etc. - agree about origins. Their beliefs have been filtered out. YOU can not explain why people with very different belief systems would have the same (scientific) explanation of origins.

He (she?) will likely argue that despite all having different beliefs, everyone "believes" in this false religion known as science...and thus get deluded. creation likely believes much as faith does---in a literal Bible, a literal flood, literal Adam & Eve, Whales, snakes, and so on.When it comes to education, however, we need to go with evidence rather than belief. That's my 2 cents.

And why would that be? There's a million ways to be wrong. Why would they all pick the same one?

Apart from picking on each other, science appears to be the common enemy...at least in creations world. I, on the other hand, believe that human wisdom and ego are the common enemies. Problem is, my critics can indict me on the same charge.