Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Who cares about "safer"?, lets teach the stuff that is best supported by evidence.

Hi mram10! Welcome to the forums, I hope you find lots of stuff to talk about. Why? Just because it can be twisted to slightly support the point you're trying to make? Okay, we'll go with it.

quote:

---

religion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

​

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

---

Gotcha. Yes, according to this definition, anyway.
Of course, according to this same definition, the following are all "religions" as well:-recreational slo-pitch
-Nintendo
-lowering your car chassis
-smoking cigars
-growing your toenailsAre you sure you want to say that each of these "very important to a person or group" items is on par with your religion?
I don't have a religion myself, but if I did, I'd find that sort of lowering-of-the-bar a bit counter-productive and possibly even insulting. Absolutely correct.
Too bad it doesn't have a valid description of origins... If you're created for a purpose... you are held less accountable for everything you do, etc... you are held less accountable because some of the responsibility will be on the one who created you for whatever purpose they had in mind.If you are not created for a purpose... then you are held more accountable for everything you do, etc. Because, well, who else would be accountable?So common sense would tell us: 1.

I've taken both religion and evolution classes, they are not the same.Evolution classes focus on physical evidence, my religion classes focused on The Bible. That was never taught in any evolution class I have taken. Unless you accept Jesus in your heart on your deathbed and then you're accountable for nothing.

Welcome to the fray mram10, Curiously, that does not define science, and that pretty well rules out teaching any version of religion that fits your watered down definition in science classes -- where the material does fit the definition of science. Teaching science, because the field of evolution does fit the definition of science, it follows the scientific method, it does not depend on opinion but on empirical objective evidence. And not only is opinion worthless in studying science, but it has been shown to be woefully inadequate in altering reality in any way shape or form. Science studies reality as evidenced by objective empirical evidence. Opinion can be wrong, as can be seen by the fact that your opinion of evolution is wrong. If they have a testable description of origins then they can be reviewed by the scientific method to determine whether or not they are valid, and without such a test it can't be scientific. If you are teaching to increase knowledge then nothing is "safe" -- good teaching will always challenge opinions and cherished beliefs, because the purpose is to learn something new."Safe" would be teaching kindergarten courses to older kids and adults ... no challenge there. And is that "purpose" to wallow in ignorance, or is it to challenge your knowledge of reality, to grow in knowledge ... after all what is the "purpose" of having a brain if not to use it? Again, your opinion. But consider that you need to include all life in your philosophy. Or not, depending on your beliefs, of which there are a vast number of various concepts, and without some method to test them with objective empirical evidence none of them qualify for inclusion in any science class.One of the things to consider is this: if your belief system involves beliefs that are known to be false -- such as believing in a young earth instead of accepting that it is 4.55 + billion years old (based on tested objective empirical evidence) -- that you are not being taught "safe" things but wrong things.Enjoy

But using that same definition, teaching math is also a religion. Its an interest which is very important to mathematicians. Teaching people how to speak Spanish is a religious activity, that's an activity that is very important to people who are monolingual in Spanish. The law of conservation of energy is very important to the group known as "physicists". American history is important to Americans. And so on ... It doesn't, I checked. No religious opinions should be taught in public schools. This is why biology textbooks don't actually contain the claim that there is no afterlife.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is going to be fun So far, I see the "science" here is the same as my professors and co-workers since. I was really hoping to find an unbiased site where new ideas are welcome.Most that argue against ID or a creation moment are ignorant to what work has been put into it and the logic behind it. I will not try to argue them to those close minded there-is-no-evidence-for-that types. For those with a truly scientific mind, I would love to learn from and debate the differing theories, rather than argue a flat earth for the rest of all time Sadly, I do not have time to respond to all of the replies aimed at me above, but have read them. Evolution requires faith, which those that are entrenched will not admit. Observational science is my comfort zone, thus I feel without observation, I am not comfortable putting blind trust in a theory. I look forward to those of you looking for true science. As for the others, your position is noted, but please feel free to keep the negative comments to yourself. I hope you know I am not being rude, I just do not have time to waste hearing the same bashing that is all over the internet to anyone not accepting of the TOE.

To mram10 and everyone else:Remember what this topics theme is (look at the topic title).If you are going to be getting into specifics of the science/non science of evolution, creation, or ID, chances are the discussion belongs somewhere else.Adminnemooseus

I'm sure we all would love to see you present evidence supporting creation and/or ID. Maybe you could pick a favorite area and propose a new topic? But really try for focus - We don't want a "25 reasons Creation/ID is true" type topic. Pick 1 or at most a few closely related items, if you propose a topic.Adminnemooseus

Creationism is not a new idea at all. Way older than science. Why do you pretend that creationism is a new idea?What the heck is "observational science"?Are you a reincarnated Hitler? Why should anyone keep negative comments to themself? People here tend to point out exactly where and when posters write nonsense. Which is a good thing when trying to learn something.

New ideas are welcome here, but in the Science Forums they are not immune to skepticism. If they fail to measure up, you must expect that they will be criticized.The topic is teaching evolution vs. religion in school. You clearly are coming down on the side of teaching religion in public schools (whether as creationism, or it's illegitimate step-child, ID). But, unfortunately, what you are doing is arguing a flat earth--you are arguing for a belief that has been found to be without evidence. And this is what you want taught in schools? No problem. Just pick a representative one, close to the topic, and respond to that. It is encouraged that we remain on-topic here so feel free to just respond to those posts to you which are on-topic. Evolution is based on evidence. Religions require faith because they don't have the evidence to support their claims. If you, as a religious believer, truly had evidence supporting your beliefs you would be trumpeting that evidence from the highest towers. Instead, you (generic "you") have to try and sneak your beliefs into schools under the guise first of creation "science," then of the "science" of intelligent design, then as some sort of "critical thinking." And you do so by sneaking believers onto school boards rather than presenting evidence in peer-reviewed journals. The whole sordid story came out in the Dover trial. A theory is the single best explanation for a particular series of facts. It must explain all of those facts, not be contradicted by any relevant facts, and make successful predictions. And then it is just a theory--not a "proven fact" as creationists usually demand. In science proof is not the "gold" standard--theory is."Observational science" is just a creation of creationists seeking to denigrate those sciences that contradict their religious beliefs. And true science, or should I say, TRVE science, is what agrees with your religious beliefs? All science relies on the scientific method, and no part of science is more true than any other as science is not aimed at truth, or TRVTH. This is just another false definition propounded by creationists in an effort to shore up their beliefs and to denigrate any field of science which contradicts their beliefs.Here is a good way of describing this issue:

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

In other words, you were looking for a site to rubber-stamp your religious beliefs, and maybe even tell you that they represented good science.Sorry, try down the hall. We have Forums on this site devoted to religious belief and biblical study.But you have posted to the Science Forums part of this site, and here you are expected to bring evidence to support your claims.

Prissie,
I am not Hitler
As for observational science, it is very complicated. It is science based on .... well.... observation Edited by mram10, : No reason given.

Oh, it's a creationist device for avoiding reality. Basically, if you've actually seen something happen, it's "observational science". If you haven't seen it happen, then one opinion about whether it happened is just as good as another, no matter what the evidence is, 'cos that's not "observational science".This way, creationists don't have to be wrong about the significance of all the evidence for evolution bit by bit, but instead at a single stroke they can be wrong about whether it has any significance at all. This relieves them of having to actually look at the evidence, which would involve effort and which might end in them realizing that creationism is bollocks.You will note that this epistemological view, if applied consistently, would make the people who held it incompetent to function in the real world. Fortunately for them, intellectual consistency is not one of their virtues.

Coyote,
You are obviously the closed-minded type that is against "science".
The human body is complicated enough to warrant a look into "design". Life in general warrants a look into "design". THe universe is too perfect in my opinion to be a chance happening.
Observation is just a creation argument?? Not sure where you came up with that, but it is false. Observation is a building block of the scientific method. You think you have me "pegged" as a ....., and I obviously have you "pegged" as an evolutionary zealot, thus, it is probably better for you to avoid my posts. I am being respectful and wish to avoid wasting your time as well as mine.

Dr Adequate,
"They"?? Observation is a basis of the scientific method. I am not sure why the vitriol for my comment. Our relationship is that of the fox and the hound I would enjoy your constructive comments, but feel free to keep the negative stereotyping to yourself.
True science accepts all inquiries for testing, than sorts from there. I hope you will understand new evidence every day is being found by scientists that might change the way we understand the earth, origins, etc. A great example is the human genome project. The 70s brought the idea we were 99% similar to chimpanzees. Now, it is far less and we actually see the 600 million base pair difference along with the chromosomal difference. Junk DNA is no longer junk Amazing what we learn in time.

I am reporting on the maneuvers I've seen creationists actually carry out when prating about "observational science". It's difficult to describe their practices accurately without sounding a little negative. If I wanted to be positive about their antics, I could have written "Creationists are such wise clever people with some really excellent ideas about epistemology" ... but that wouldn't actually be true. Yes, scientists have found out such a lot of interesting things. Some of this knowledge has even trickled down to creationists eventually. But daydreaming about what new evidence they "might" find is somewhat removed from anything that deserves the name "observational".