I remember my first year of university studies, when one of my lecturers said something along the lines of "if you believe in the bible you do not belong in this class". Of course everyone needs to respect individual belief systems
I don't see that this is true, exactly.
While I'm hesitant to call science a "belief system", for fear of equating it with religion, it would be accurate if we take "belief system" to refer to "a system by which people decide what is real or true."
If you're in a science class doing science, then everybody doing the science agrees on (at least) one thing - to operate under a belief system that says "if we can't agree that it's true, it probably isn't." This in a nutshell is objectivity. Other belief systems, like
"if it's in the Bible, it's true" are incompatible with the science.
So saying that if you believe in the Bible (by which I assume he meant "if you believe that the Bible is without error" not "if you believe that the bible exists") then you don't belong in a science class is reasonable - your method of determining what is real and true will never be compatible with science, and you're just wasting your time with science instruction.
The problem with creationists is they want it both ways. They want to proceed from a methodology of "if it's in the Bible, it's true" while simultaneously presenting the face of objectivity. It's too bad for us that a lot of people don't seem to understand the difference.
Human evolution has nothing to do with the bible and this is why it is not necessarily taught in high schools, because most populations believe in some form of God and some form of creation theory.
Well, the problem isn't that the findings of science in terms of human evolution don't intersect with the narrative of the Bible, it's that human evolution almost totally contradicts the Bible story. That's what creationists really object to.
™ Version 4.2