Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

It is not my claims. TOE does involve a belief in the way evolving happened in the past. It does involve a specific set of beliefs used on all evidences such as the fossil record. In fact it is nothing more at all. Please be honest. If there is a mod out there who is a good honest atheist, rather than a phoney believer, please take over here...thanks.Edited by dad, : No reason given.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

I know you're confused and bewildered by time so I'm sure you won't be impressed by me saying that my comments was the day before he was suspended (not banned).But I'm sure you're right, EVC clocks had a different nature yesterday.

Clocks based on assuming nature was the same are what science is set to. Apologies for mistaking the post...Edited by dad, : No reason given.

That is not an assumption. That is fact, and you can not show otherwise, can you.You still have nothing.

You claimed you learned it in school.

It's quite true that there are various "beliefs" involved in science. For example, we assume that the same physical laws hold true in one place as in another. This is essential because how could we study, say, electrons if they behaved differently in Bob's lab than in Carol's? We also assume that the same physical laws hold true in different times. Otherwise Ted's laboratory would get different results today than it did yesterday.But these are reasonable assumptions, aren't they?

Those aren't actually bare naked assumptions. They are tested as much as possible in an ongoing way. So far they are reasonable conclusions not assumptions.

They are "conclusions" in that what we have observed so far agrees with them.However, when we study something that we have not (yet) observed quite so thoroughly (a far-off nebula or an ancient fossil) we have to make the "assumption".

That's what science is all about - drawing the best conclusions from what we know so far.

Lenski's research has received considerable attention, including lengthy discussion in Carl Zimmer's book on E. coli, Microcosm, and in Richard Dawkins' book on the evidence for evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth. Included in Dawkins' discussion was a description of the dialog Lenski had in 2008 with Andrew Schlafly, creator of Conservapedia, which Schlafly initiated as a reaction to reports of Lenski's description of the evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one of the long-term evolution experiment populations. These same findings were later cited by the creationist Ken Ham in a debate over evolution with Bill Nye. Lenski strongly criticized Ham's citation of his work and the conclusions Ham drew from it.

Should religion be taught with evolution in schools?This issue may be better addressed by a discussion on whether religion should be encouraged in education or not.The subject of religion is very broad. Because decisions and consequent actions are based on ones religion whatever it may be, it's impossible to keep religious influence out of any action including educating.Yes, the student should be made aware of and familiarized with the widespread presence of the evolutionary mindset. But if evolutionary teaching is to be seen as that of pure science, then why do scientists that support Biblical creation tend to be looked down upon? Please? Why do many teachers tend to prefer to teach evolution in the absence of Biblical truth? Honest science does not support evolution.Biblical Christian religion is the usual target of long standing controversy. With such as the basis of self government and good behavior, why the big fuss toward throwing it out of public life? Is it not it that keeps you and me from wanting to harm each other?Was it not the gradual, ongoing removal of the Biblical religious standard from our culture that accelerated the increasing rise and overflow of the chaos we see around us today? Freedom to live this standard that America's founding fathers gave us at great cost should never have been under attack as it now is.Edited by EWolf, : No reason given.

Edited by EWolf, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This issue may be better addressed by a discussion on whether religion should be encouraged in education or not

---

More importantly the question is whether sectarian dogma should be presented as fact in schools - when the evidence is greatly against it,

quote:

---

Yes, the student should be made aware of and familiarized with the widespread presence of the evolutionary mindset. But if evolutionary teaching is to be seen as that of pure science, then why do scientists that support Biblical creation tend to be looked down upon? Please?

---

How should we react to people who reject science while claiming to be “scientists”? .And the dishonesty noted among creationists hardly helps.

quote:

---

Why do many teachers tend to prefer to teach evolution in the absence of Biblical truth?

---

Because they prefer to teach the truth over false sectarian dogma.

quote:

---

Honest science does not support evolution.

---

That’s an example of creationist dishonesty - perhaps not on your part, you may well have been deceived yourself. Nevertheless it is a fact that honest science overwhelmingly supports evolution,

quote:

---

Biblical Christian religion is the usual target of long standing controversy. With such as the basis of self government and good behavior, why the big fuss toward throwing it out of public life? Is it not it that keeps you and me from wanting to harm each other?

---

There’s whole issue of religious freedom - which rules out the theocratic tyranny wanted by “Biblical Christian religion” (which is not Biblical nor very Christian). And then there’s the very bad behaviour of those promoting it which rather contradicts the idea that their religion is the “basis of good behaviour”. If it were its followers should be notably better behaved than most, rather than notably worse.

quote:

---

Was it not the gradual, ongoing removal of the Biblical religious standard from our culture that accelerated the increasing rise and overflow of the chaos we see around us today?

---

No.

quote:

---

Freedom to live this standard that America's founding fathers gave us at great cost should never have been under attack as it now is.

---

The Founding Fathers of America gave the freedom you want to take away. In part because of the abuses of the Puritans. Look up the Boston Martyrs. Look up the history of Maryland. The Founders ruled out religious tests for office. The Founders gave America the First Amendment - and the religious freedom there is the basis for keeping sectarian dogma out of schools. And how are you forbidden from “living the standard”? Think about that.

Of course religion should be taught in school. Religion is a very important part of human history, philosophy and the development of our civilisation.The curriculum should include the history and beliefs of all world religions and include non-belief, paganism and ancestor worship. It should obviously not be simply another form of Christian sectarianism.Evolution is taught in schools as an integral part of the biological sciences where it needs to beBiblical creationism has no place being taught in a science class because it isn't science but it could be included - in all its many forms - in the module discussing the various creation myths.

Where in education?Religion is the bane of this species. It is a belief in ghosts, gods, and hobgoblins that don’t exist. The major problem with religion is its adherents resort to bloody violence at the least provocation. Our history is one of constant pervasive religious warfare and religious abuse of humanity. Religion should no longer have a place in the minds of men.But religion is a reality that should be studied. Studied with the goal of understanding its lust for power, its penchant for violence, and to negate those influences on society. That is university level study, not grade school.In the public primary and secondary schools religion is poison to developing young minds and has no place in the education of our young. Religious study should be relegated to university levels after the young have been taught how to think critically and have some understanding that ghosts, gods, and hobgoblins are fake and that there is a reality to be lived. Bull. Oh that is rich. Evolutionary mindset. You mean the mindset of reality. Anything less is blind, intellectually deficient, whimsical fantasy. Stupidity. Because, in fact, such thinking is stupid whimsical fantasy that our history shows leads to bloodshed and death. Such has no place in science and those who think such and say they are scientists are no more than delusional or charlatan. There isn’t any biblical truth. The truth is physics with evolution as one of its major accomplishments. Does the name Aaron Rodgers mean anything to you? Aaron doesn’t believe in biology either. You’re both stupid.FYI, the only science to support reality is the honest, real, demonstrable science and that includes evolution. Religious weenies keep trying to kill evolution but, since it is the reality of this world as revealed by real science, your errant religious whining means nothing to this universe. Because religion has failed big time as a basis for any human interaction. Religion’s history is nothing but blind belief in fantasy, power-mad bloodletting, misery and strife. Religion has failed humanity and has proven itself to be catastrophic, caustic and deadly. Even to placate the intellectually weak religion should no longer have any place in human society. No, it’s not. Religion is violent, repressive and intellectually void as shown by your efforts here to obfuscate, deny the obvious and impose your bloody cult on humanity. Freedom is not dependent on your cult. The founding fathers gave us a secular government and your blood-thirst, power-mad priests have no role to play. None.This country was progressing just fine until the religious right and their alt-reich bedmates decided they owned the place and is now forcing their own religious restrictions, their own fickle hypocritical morality, a denial of human freedoms, and a religions lust for absolute power upon our people.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This statement is wrong on so many levels. Coming from you I almost expect it, however. There may come a time when your statement can be objectively verified or disproven but no such evidence overwhelmingly exists at this point in time. You are poisoning the peanut gallery with your propoganda.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.