Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

An idea or a belief considered to be evidence can come from a vast network of interrelated ideas and findings, so that we end up with a web of knowledge, which is undeniable - through nearby evidences, in any location,
and yet the whole thing could be based on a single falsehood that no one dares to challenge, because of its vastness, age, general alignments and most of all co-dependencies.If the whole thing is based on some falsehood, it has to have a system of defense for those living in it, and that system of defense could very well be the same means to extend its web, - logic, reasoning, philosophy, testing whatever.This ensures that those defending the web are more securely attached to it, as they defend it.But the defenders, don't believe they are threatened, even though they are acting that way. The simple mention of creation causes very long speeches, great investigations and backup, forensic analysis, interrogations even of minors, screaming "delusional" and so forth. And of course lots of reviews about other "delusionals."If the web was truly secure it would not be so alarmed at the opinion of someone who is obviously "delusional."Why would it be necessary for a whole brigade to pounce on a "delusional" with lesson sticks if the suspect is of no consequence to the system?Interesting isn't it?There is a saying "If you throw a stone over a wall at a pack of dogs, you know you have scored a hit by the ones which make the loudest noise."It seems to me that science has a bug in it which does not belong there. While claiming to be open minded etc, it is too sensitive and defensive about itself.
It reminds me of the dark ages, when the church righteously torched someone who differed in thought.
Who could argue with the church? Its members were prominent educators, trusted professors with honors and degrees, sound familiar? It had all the evidence for its own standing and yet it was fully evil.

The oppressive and evil reign of the Papacy ended up causing the French revolution which swung into atheism, rather than at the cause of its rebellion alone, which was a false system of religion.So now we have two false systems which are incompatible, and yet working together to keep the masses in two camps.The falsehood of science is the dismissal of God, and genuine religion, and the falsehood of religions has been to dismiss God as well, by teaching errors about God.So the argument about whether creation and evolution should be taught in schools together is endlessly spurred on by two dysfunctional systems.Creation should be taught scientifically without the theory of evolution, and without the falsehoods of established religion.

I'll be stupid to make you feel better about yourself.

You believe that science is a flawless self justifying machine, when it is also based on fundamental human beliefs which drive the conclusions considered to be evidence.
One of these days science will double over and die, taking the theories of the last century with it.
That is already beginning to happen now.
It will also be uncovered that the dating methods used are based on false premises.

The bottom line of modern science is to dismiss God, with or without mentioning the Name.

I have not been able to respond to numerous posts, which no doubt have good arguments.
When the posts grow into essays I switch off, because a good answer can be summarized. Edited by Colbard, : delete word

You would, but at which point is up to date true, when by its own claims is saying that it has to be flexible to change with new evidence?You could teach whatever you want but you would not be allowed to test anyone on it, or fail them because it may all be proven false in the future.
The idea of progressive knowledge is like a boat without a rudder.At least with creationism you already have an established base, which does not change, it is only discovered in more detail.

7 of the European countries did not have the Pope as King, but each had their own, which were subservient to the Vatican.
The Catholic Church of Rome, was and is the Vatican, was and is the Papacy.

We agree that whether the universe is expanding or not, will not make a lot of difference which way you get out of bed. So there's an impractical theoretical side of science as well as an applied science which is the only one students should be tested on.
Evolution theory has 'proven evidence' to some people but not half of America, which have evidence against it. So the evidence depends on a persons view or opinion, which as far as you have pointed out is of no consequence, and yet in real life it is so important that there are opposing views in the same world.To say that creationists are all deluded is self condemning, since half of the US believe in it.I believe there is truth and method in both camps, as well as error in both camps.

I am surprised that I would find someone with your opinion on that. You will have to do your own research, because of bigotry and bias on the history of the Vatican. My sources are considered unfair to the Papacy which murdered over 60 million during the dark ages, and has been removing such facts from history records for centuries.

To Percy and Coyote,
Are these posts of yours, your opinion or a reflection of other opinions.If they are your opinions, they don't, in your scientific system, have any value without peer reviewed evidence.
However, if you are just reflectors of other men's thoughts, then that speaks for itself as intellectual codependency.What you are saying is that because I disagree on certain points which you deem to be right, because it has been peer reviewed and accepted on a grand scale, that I must be wrong.But your opinion does not count, and neither are you in a peer reviewing board that represents global science. Unless you have been chosen to represent or speak for the board?Your system demands accountability to which you must hold to, otherwise you are being hypocrites for asking me to back up anything, which I don't have to in my world, because a person's intelligence actually counts, whereas in yours, you are answerable to an authority on knowledge. Does that sound like "all men are created equal" or communism?And that is what you want to keep in education? It's not compatible with Christian freedom is it?

I don't see freedom as an opportunity to lie do you?Let me know when you see a half monkey man and I'll make sure you can have your medication.
In the mean time don't lose your hold on what others are saying, because your opinion must line up with theirs, unless of course you have a resource of knowledge that puts you on an equal footing, something like nature and revelation. I am sorry if they don't belong to you, its a pity you would turn down such a good offer for popularity and self gratification.

In your case I'd have to agree.
You see that's rude what I said, but that's what you get without ID, you are of far more value than an accidental complex mole.Edited by Colbard, : add

A nice reply Percy.

Good idea, just don't like your avatar!