Actually I read that symbolic interpretations from parts of the bible dates back to the 4th century or something like that.

As for your second point, I feel it's because creationists were still in the majority at the time and religion held more power on the education system, while they saw evolution as a threat. But the times, they are a-changin. Obviously Christians had to adapt or slowly go extinct, so most started accepting the theory as oppose to challenging it.

Damn I should have gone to bed a long time ago. That's usually why I avoid threads like these, you can get sucked in and are never able to leave. Night.

Yeah, you cant really argue against somebody who makes up things for themself to believe in.  If it sounds good in the Bible, believe it, it if sounds bad, dont believe it.  Oh, the Bible says something contradictory to common sense, well I dont believe that but I believe what it says on the next page.

Strange, that the hardcore christians haven't jumped in this thread. You can easily take the bible serious without taking it to literal.

See it in context: one, at least 1500 year old, book always has flaws, but there are still many things in it, that are true i..e. examples how to live as a good person.

So ManusJustus be as your name implicates and don't see everything black or white - this actually puts you on the same line as the extremists whackos.

btt.: I don't think,  that necessarily Evolution is taught, but I'm quite sure you would stumble over it, when kids ask you, where dinosaurs etc. come from.

I never ever doubted, nor do I know somebody in real life who ever thought, that they didn't get distinct some million years ago. That to say, I didn't have any special "Evolution science"-classes until 9th class, but as everything is part of this you're still getting your parts in other biological topics.

Guys let's not get into bible bashing. Just a friendly reminder because I can see it going that way already. This is about schools and the curriculum.

Never.

The literal meaning of the bible is actually the newer intererpriation.

This was the case even before the bible even existed as there were numerous different christian texts that were made to illustrate points.  For example the stories of jesus when he was a kid.

The only Christian scripts seen as literal to my knowledge are the four main gospels.

Although it should be noted that the bible is inetrestingly a great source of history....

Lots of things historians and scientisists said never existed ended up actually existing later proved by archaelogical digs.

Are they excluding the practical concept of evolution, the theory of evolution, or both?

While I still think you can't even take those main gospels literally in all points, I totally agree with you, that the bible is a great source for history. But it must be taken in a historical context as how you treat every source, i.e. numbers are exaggerated, historical events written in favour of the Jews etc. If you count everything together you'll find great things, if not you'll find bullshit.

Could you give one example of things scientists (not historians to specify) said that can't exist and were proven later wrong, because something written in the bible was true? No such thing comes into my head atm, but I just might need some input.

actually no. In regards to evolution or natural selection, both can work in tandem.

I mean this time i'm not even going to use my own arguements for this, i'll use yours.

first quote: but whose to say god did not make man in the image of himself, but the process of evolution took place because we as every other living form evolves via natural selection. If you want to take genesis LITERALLY, you are saying that women have less worth than men and every man should look the same as god because ya know, we are in his image (literally). Though we don't, and they aren't.

second quote: ^refer to literal point there

third quote: natural selection hasn't changed though, and the proof is in front of you. Why are you attracted to the people you are? Its because they have a trait, and because that trait makes them succesful that trait should be passed down through generations. Where does it say in the bible that this CAN'T happen?

fourth quote: but is it not possible that god created the big bang, then those 6 steps came after? Science doesn't deny this possibility, though neither does the bible if you read into it.

Animals inheriting patterns via genetics rather then "inheritence of aquired characteristics"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_acquired_characters

"In the breeding season of the flock I lifted up my eyes and saw in a dream that the male goats that were mating with the flock were striped, spotted and mottled. Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob,' and I said, 'here I am!' And he said, 'Lift up your eyes and see that all the male goats which are mating with the flock are striped, spotted and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you."

Bible actually has some pretty neat science in it.

There is actually even a lot of stuff in it that supports big bang theory.

I totally agree with your reference to the big bang and that some things seem quite advanced for that time - but then on the other hand ancient egypt seems even more advanced and just little of that knowledge survived in the bible.

From your wikipedia-article line 4: "The idea was proposed in ancient times by Hippocrates and Aristotle"

This is more an example how science was lost in the dark ages and how common sense was used by shepherds.

please try again