Teaching evolution is OK because it's a harmless theory of how all the different types of animals and plants came about.
I think banning the teaching of evolution would be against the human right to think whatever you like. I happen to think that the story at the beginning of Genesis is a good story of how the world came to be, but I would not say that it is the truth and there is no other alternative. I could write my own story of how it all happened, but I would not present my story as a scientific theory, or the absolute truth.

Forced, though? Sounds like early to mid-second century.

Humanistically, it's kinda bullcrap. For all it's worth, Muslims tend to be very persistent in their faith - what should you do, tell them they can't believe it anymore? It's another religious war, stemmed off of the hate of atheists, which is ironic since most of the more flamboyant atheists tend to bring up the holy wars as an example of how Christianity is bad, or religion in general. Yes, that argument could be used against Islam, but there are much better ways to deal with it. Also, forcing people to learn what contradicts their beliefs? With all due respect, that stems right back to the submit thing that the Catholic church was holding on to for quite a number of years. It is rather circular, yes, but there were reasons why that was wrong, and why that same principle here is wrong.

Still, though, why shouldn't evolution be taught? In all my years of science and education, evolution didn't really have any hand in what I was doing, or religion, for that matter. I do not necessarily see the need to specifically reference it - a compromise, I would think, would be to provide a class on it as sort of an optional science credit? I find no problem on missing out on a credit if I don't want what is a load of bullcrap fed to me (objectively speaking, I don't actually think that evolution is a load of bullcrap), speaking from the perspective of one who might find it so. The better option, in my own opinion, would to go into homeschooling where you can actually learn the material based off of your religion and history, if that would so please you; but like I said, most, if not all, of what I have learned in up to and through highschool is hardly related to either evolution or religion.

I can't believe I'm actually posting in the WEPR again... This will probably be the only time for a while.

Take math for example: the teacher is not telling the student they have to believe in 2+2=4, but it Is the teachers job to make sure the kid knows 2+2=4, even if when the kid goes home, his younger brother tells him that 2+2=22.

But mathematics and algebra doesn't contradict religion - it's historical facts and deity that contradict with each other.

And whether or not evolution is true or not in this case is rather irrelevant - there will still be some people in the world that believe in some religion *cough*MiddleEast*cough*, and until all the world comes to conclusion that evolution is true and there are no exceptions, there is nothing you can do, unless you want to go on crusades and try to convince thousands to believe in atheism, and all will bow and say 'Amen!' and be saved. You would become known as the saint who made people see the truth, and be written in the Great Book of History and Truth - your writings would be recorded and treasured all throughout the world for many millenia to come.

I think that learning that 2+2=4 represents learning somrthing fundamental about the world and if I am a kid who has parents who teach him 2+2=5 I am in trouble. Search me what's it's got to do with teaching evolution. I'm just standing up for 2+2=4.

A large portion of americans would disagree.

Doesn't really matter, that's where the evidence leads.

While there are alot of athiests now a days, its not the majority.

Being atheist or not has nothing to do with evolution.

Whats wrong if it is taught and giving student the right to believe it or not?

A person is entitled to their own beliefs. They however are not entitled to their own truths.

"The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it." -Neil deGrasse Tyson

For all it's worth, Muslims tend to be very persistent in their faith - what should you do, tell them they can't believe it anymore?

I might tell them they shouldn't believe anymore.

which is ironic since most of the more flamboyant atheists tend to bring up the holy wars as an example of how Christianity is bad, or religion in general. Yes, that argument could be used against Islam, but there are much better ways to deal with it. Also, forcing people to learn what contradicts their beliefs? With all due respect, that stems right back to the submit thing that the Catholic church was holding on to for quite a number of years.

Little Suzy believes that she can float in the air like a balloon and fly by flapping her arms. So we shouldn't teach her about things like aerodynamics, gravity and mass.

No it's not the same. One is belief (opinion) the other is fact (the truth) It's a schools job to teach the facts.

Still, though, why shouldn't evolution be taught?

Maybe you missed the whole cornerstone of modern biology thing?

In all my years of science and education, evolution didn't really have any hand in what I was doing, or religion, for that matter.

If that science and education involved biology in any way I can almost guarantee it played a direct or indirect role.

The better option, in my own opinion, would to go into homeschooling where you can actually learn the material based off of your religion and history, if that would so please you; but like I said, most, if not all, of what I have learned in up to and through highschool is hardly related to either evolution or religion.

Such a method of learning can lead to a person being kept in the dark or given misinformation on the subject.

But mathematics and algebra doesn't contradict religion - it's historical facts and deity that contradict with each other.

And whether or not evolution is true or not in this case is rather irrelevant - there will still be some people in the world that believe in some religion *cough*MiddleEast*cough*, and until all the world comes to conclusion that evolution is true and there are no exceptions, there is nothing you can do, unless you want to go on crusades and try to convince thousands to believe in atheism, and all will bow and say 'Amen!'

This only puts religion in  bad light. This demonstrates just how religion impedes our ability to learn and understand the world around us.

You would become known as the saint who made people see the truth, and be written in the Great Book of History and Truth - your writings would be recorded and treasured all throughout the world for many millenia to come.

No you wouldn't. It's not a belief, it would be kind if you stopped trying to treat it as such. Unlike the crusades no one is going to go around kill for not accepting a scientific theory. In fact science thrives on being questioned and challenged. However this isn't what a religious mindset does. It wants to circumvent the system, keep critical examination at bay and that is when you get your crusades.

Search me what's it's got to do with teaching evolution. I'm just standing up for 2+2=4.

As you said  teaching 2+2=5 can lead to trouble. This goes for evolution or anything else for that matter.

This only puts religion in  bad light. This demonstrates just how religion impedes our ability to learn and understand the world around us.

In case you were wondering, I was not talking about the Crusades and the Holy War. I was targeting something more like the Billy Graham Crusades.

Also, I think world-view is mostly the key component here.

Just out of curiosity (of your answer, mostly), what topics specifically would have been missed relating to evolution as a result of objective curriculum?

(Flame war waiting to happening)

I think it's fine, in my history class we reference religion at times anyway. :P

In case you were wondering, I was not talking about the Crusades and the Holy War. I was targeting something more like the Billy Graham Crusades.

Never really heard of his crusades. What I gather from wiki just sounds like a cross between a sermon and missionary work. Was he going around forcing people to listen and participate?

At any rate the two still fall far from each other.

Also, I think world-view is mostly the key component here.

There is yet another different, evolution isn't a world view.

Just out of curiosity (of your answer, mostly), what topics specifically would have been missed relating to evolution as a result of objective curriculum?

biochemistry, genetics (heredity), germ theory, while on the microscopic if you ever studied bacteria evolution should play a role in that. classification of life , ecology, embryology, ...I'm sure I'm leaving out a bunch and possibly better examples.But each of those example would involve the use of evolution in them at some point. Genetics would be one of the best examples in there.inheriting genes from our parents get practically to the core of evolution. With ecology,  the relationship animals have with each other and the natural world. That practically gets to the core of natural selection. How we classify life, that's phylogenetics, that's the very study of evolutionary relationships.

@Joel

But mathematics and algebra doesn't contradict religion

Maybe not your religion ;)  but why should one religion get special exclusions to publicly funded (government funded) education that will affect the education of the rest of the population.  Its garbage like that which helps explain why the US is struggling in math and science compared to other advanced countries. 

And whether or not evolution is true or not in this case is rather irrelevant

No, we are talking about what gets taught in science class!!!  What is true is actually the only thing that is important.  Once again.... we are not talking about converting anyone to or from any religion!  we are talking about what gets taught in science class!

Mage Grey
I dispute the quote about science being true whether you believe in it or not because I am aware that in the USSR that the government had its own science to suit the purposes of the state. This brand of Soviet science was not true.
I think that if the USA adopts creationism in schools because of pressure from bible belt voters it follows the same path.
I will give you that a tiger is still a tiger when it's labelled a mouse.

Mage Grey
I dispute the quote about science being true whether you believe in it or not because I am aware that in the USSR that the government had its own science to suit the purposes of the state. This brand of Soviet science was not true.
I think that if the USA adopts creationism in schools because of pressure from bible belt voters it follows the same path.
I will give you that a tiger is still a tiger when it's labelled a mouse.

The key word there being "Soviet Science"
There are fundamentals to science, not the labels. Gravity is still gravity, even if you label it otherwise or say it is an impossible force that makes no sense. Electricity is undeniable, but it existed before we discovered it. Science finds these things out, these processes and forces.