Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

1. yes evolution is duplicatable, biologists do it all the time in labs, as someone said on the board once, people are confusing replication of evolution with replication of natural history, we can't reproduce history, but we can learn from it2. evolution isn't about the origins of life its about the changes of populations over time through mutation, filtered by natural selection, you are thinking of abiogenesis which is at an early stage right now3. i think you are misunderstanding the principle of NS and evolution,its not about "use it or lose it" its about having the best fit for the enveriment, if say you spend more and more time in water, not one lifeform but a population, you might lose your need for longer limbs, over time as the population gets filtered out of genes of longer limbs, they would develop flippers say
pluse humans use all the brain, its just a myth
4.what you are calling development is need, with the larger brain able to think of weapons that would defeat the biggest oppenent of our niche do you really think we need claws? you are concluding a flawed understanding, its not about being the best, but having the right tools for the right job. in our case its a larger brain5. sorry, as i said before you are equating two differing sciences,you need to talk to the chemists for that one what are you trying to say here?, dead vs alive?, if you mean something like a virus, well they are inbetween since they don't reproduce themselves, but use cells to do it

so we arn't going to teach about the fall? or full depravity? or lutherism? whos beliefs are purely from the bible? i know of no denomination that teachs purely the bible they all have some form of exagensis
the catholics wrote the creed i believe it would be opression if the kid is the minority - say a jew or muslam or anyone who isn't a christian. thats why theres no teaching of beliefs outside religion courses, because you are only representing one belief

the assumptions are yours, the assumption that to accept evolution means no god, when you haven't proven anyway. your beliefs
mainly evolution =! god
which isn't true don't change the definition when he refutes your arguement using it evolution isn't a belief doctrine its a scientific theory. no one has heritage beliefs, if we have any its ancester worship and fire worship, sky god worship is just a continuation of that

i guess this doesn't mean that you think evolution is only supported if there is no god?
maybe you could stop shifting things around and stick to one statment what does this even mean? even if i don't believe in god whats relivent to what i said? brace yourself, having multipul meanings for a word doesn't mean that they are all used by people when using the word i guess you really think people use doctrine that way? don't kid yourself
your usage is just twisting it, you are just quibbing over a definition no one usesby the way nice quotemining, if you read what i wrote instead of chopping it up, i said was we had none in refrence to christianity historicly, what christian heritage, most people don't remotly believe the same things - most founders of this country didn't belong to any church this is just spliting hairs, you can say this about anything this doesn't make it doctrine as we use it
sorry you just like quibbling over semetics and definitions that no one uses

only if you define god as being limited by the bible, but the bible is irrelievent when speaking of god, its a book about preceptions of god, it does not define who or what god is, as jar says the map is not the territory.
if you do not define god by the bible he can produce life with evolution, ergo evolution doesn't exclude god, by defining god by the bible you are limiting god which you can't do theres one for you, no one i've ever met uses doctrine when talking about science, unless to belittle it in all the pages on defintions
Archaic. Something taught; a teaching. is the last one and its use is no longer used, dueling definitions is silly. i'm sorry i've never heard of anyone just suddendly believing in god for an unknown reason, can you name a person that is real that has?
they have to join some church or organized religion or the belief in form comes from some church somewhere along the line, even those who home teach someone has to have it come from somewherei could talk about how truely well known jesus is but meh, it would be OTEdited by ReverendDG, : wow something broke my browser

show me then you shouldn't be able to change a definition of a word suddenly if it deosn't work for you, there should be some agreement what? that doesn't make any sense, i was getting at that no one uses the definition of "Doctrine" that way anymore - using it is just splitting hairs and making a pointless arguement.Even if you use doctrine people think of a religious doctrine, because that is how it is used and the argument was made that way that evolution is a belief doctrine - a religious belief doctrine, which it is not
using "Something taught; a teaching" could make anything a doctrine then i could say wittling is a doctrine, teaching someone to dance is a doctrine then. Using "well evolution is a doctrine!,"
well damn well everything is! what kind of argument is that? nice preaching there, but that wasn't even close to what i was saying, historicly most of the founders came from CoE and so did most everyone that founded america - guess what? they wanted to get away from christian domination did i say he was? no i said people didn't remotely believe in the same things. no the heritage if any is we have the freedom to believe or not believe in him or anything else for that matter, anything else is revisionism

gee then he's not god now is he? god can not die how about you read what i said instead of being flippent, or can you not make a real arguement? i guess when a dictionary agrees with me that no one uses the definition, then you have no arguement? how does it do that? it just shows that quibbling over definitions is what you have. oh its a doctrine so its wrong! wow nice arguement - thats all you have? do you have any evidence? being that they decided that no religion would control the goverment or allow one religious belief to dictate what everyone else can do shows me that they didn't want christianity to dominate thier lives anymore what the hell does that have to do with what i said, you were not reading what i wrote so i repeated it, this part is irrelevent you need to go read a history book then, the majority is irrelevent in this country thats why we have laws, they don't protect the majority they protect the minority - which is those who believe in what the majority does not, which is a good heritage
if we followed the majority we might as well call this jesusland and be done with it
anyway i'm done with this nonsense, this really isn't going anywhere

i think this would work nicely, teaching creationism along side evolution theory would confuse children enough trying to absorb science though so a class or chapter on the contrasts might be in order eather aat the begining or the end of the classthe downside is creationists don't want this though they want some bizaar thing, i have the feeling a contrast class would piss them off just like what happened to the teacher here in kansaswe could also bring up other failed pseudosciences like hollow earth theory, larmarkian theory (sp?), flat earthism, scientology etc
if those folks want critical thinking to be primary, they should be willing to scrutinze thier theories

I sgree with Ringo, if this is the kind of tripe people are hearing about evolution, then we do need to teach iti mean come on "macro-evolution" takes long periods of time of course we can't see it in real-time if we wanted to we would have to find someway to become immortal. now we have found animals and reclassified them..but not in real time this assuption is just wrong, if we agreed that some god made the animals we wouldn't be having this debate, there wouldn't be any point to it.