Originally posted by shadow
spiritwolf i didnt say "you as a person" created the problem i meant amarica and ofcurse both shouldent be taught in a science class when i say both i mean this.

Science class: teatch the science we know

Religion class: teatch the religion we know.

thats what i mean then let folks what to belive thats how we do in sweden

where not trying to eliminate the other "as you state some are in america" and i say it ones again i didnt say you created the problem am saying the amarican folks did.

it has sutsh a simple solution to all this that it almost makes me laugh.. just teatch both in diffrent classes and then let the students deside what to belive...

as i said Amarica/ "realgius groups or what not" is creating a problem that isent there..
But, if you educate people on Creationism, you must educate them on every theory, from Native American folklore to Hinduism, etc. That's where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in. Basically, you can create a ridiculous theory of how the world came to be and label it as religion. You don't need scientific and supported theories to create a religion. Therefore, why should we teach something that has no scientific proof in a Science class?

For example, if I had a religion that believes that all car accidents without any witnesses or survivors were caused by aliens, you would think that it's crazy because we have physicists that can nearly exactly explain what happened to make those cars crash. So why should we teach religion with evolution? You don't think that nearly all scientists support evolution for no good reason, do you? These people devote their lives into research, and suddenly we're going to believe that some person has just enough merit because they read it in a book which was written thousands of years ago? That would be like me being a coach for a professional sports team because ultimately, strategies are all theories anyways, and according to those that support Creationism, theories are all equal since none has been definitely proven.