The problem with that is that young children aren't quite mentally developed enough to make such decisions for themselves.  If two or more competing theories are taught side by side, they're just going to get confused.

Teach the science based theories in public schools.  Teach the religious based theories in private schools, or in Sunday school.

Teach neither until children are mentally developed enough to make such decisions.   Let parents teach them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2013 10:50:00 AM (view original):
That's an entire different topic.    One man's faith does not equate to the faith of many.    Nonetheless, I wouldn't want to be responsible for making the "religion in school" call.   That said, I don't mind the powers that be deciding to teach two theories as opposed to one.    Present them as theories, fairly and without opinion(which would never happen), and let the students explore for more detail.   It's called "learning".

You can't teach both theories in science class. You are free to believe whatever you want, but something isn't science until there is evidence. There's no evidence supporting a young earth.

If you teach evolution as science, and as something that scientists consider to be a fact, and then teach creationism as a belief that many Christians and Jewish people have, then ok.  But it's important to remember that creationism, in it's purest, most literal form, isn't something that is supported by the scientific community, so to teach it in a science class is misleading, at best.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2013 10:50:00 AM (view original):
That's an entire different topic.    One man's faith does not equate to the faith of many.    Nonetheless, I wouldn't want to be responsible for making the "religion in school" call.   That said, I don't mind the powers that be deciding to teach two theories as opposed to one.    Present them as theories, fairly and without opinion(which would never happen), and let the students explore for more detail.   It's called "learning".

You can't teach both theories in science class. You are free to believe whatever you want, but something isn't science until there is evidence. There's no evidence supporting a young earth.

As tec said, maybe they're not mentally developed enough to make decisions.  Maybe you teach nothing until they are.

And, FWIW, I'm sure you can teach anyfuckingthing you want as long as it's approved by those who approve said things. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2013 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2013 10:50:00 AM (view original):
That's an entire different topic.    One man's faith does not equate to the faith of many.    Nonetheless, I wouldn't want to be responsible for making the "religion in school" call.   That said, I don't mind the powers that be deciding to teach two theories as opposed to one.    Present them as theories, fairly and without opinion(which would never happen), and let the students explore for more detail.   It's called "learning".

You can't teach both theories in science class. You are free to believe whatever you want, but something isn't science until there is evidence. There's no evidence supporting a young earth.

As tec said, maybe they're not mentally developed enough to make decisions.  Maybe you teach nothing until they are.

Young earth theories aren't science regardless of the age of the students.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2013 11:09:00 AM (view original):
And, FWIW, I'm sure you can teach anyfuckingthing you want as long as it's approved by those who approve said things. 

Yes, anyone can do anyfuckingthing as long as it's approved by those who approve said things.  I'm thinking teaching creationism as science shouldn't be approved.

I wouldn't want my kids being taught creationism as an alternative to evolution in school.  I'd have a huge problem with that.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 9:11:00 AM (view original):
If you have evidence that challenges the consensus, feel free to provide it. You act like there's some grand conspiracy among scientists when, in reality, every scientist has a huge incentive to prove everyone else wrong. That's how you become rich and famous in science. If you could prove that the entire fields of biology, chemistry, geology, and physics were wrong you'd win a Nobel Prize. Colleges would be named after you. Your children would never have to work a day in their lives.

How did it work out for the guys who first said the earth was round? Who said the earth orbited the sun? Were they praised and made wealthy? You think everyone in the "scientific community" would sit happily by if someone proved their life's work and beliefs a sham?

Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
I wouldn't want my kids being taught creationism as an alternative to evolution in school.  I'd have a huge problem with that.

And this is what weakens the evolutionist position. If your system was "fact" you'd have no problem with it standing next to another theory. But you're afraid it won't hold up, so you cry "NO!"

If it was indeed fact, you could confidently sit back and watch the other theories fall apart beside it.

Posted by stinenavy on 2/5/2013 10:58:00 PM (view original):
Evolutionist: "According to science..."

Creationists: "BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE!!!"

Called it

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
I wouldn't want my kids being taught creationism as an alternative to evolution in school.  I'd have a huge problem with that.

And this is what weakens the evolutionist position. If your system was "fact" you'd have no problem with it standing next to another theory. But you're afraid it won't hold up, so you cry "NO!"

If it was indeed fact, you could confidently sit back and watch the other theories fall apart beside it.

I'm talking about elementary school age children.  They're not mentally developed enough to distinguish between the validity of competing theories.

If you "teach" a bunch of first graders that the moon is made out of cheese, many of them are going to believe it.

Is that the kind of educational system you're advocating?

What's funny is that you don't realize science is your "bible". Stories and studies created over time by men you know nothing about, who happen to share your beliefs

Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
I wouldn't want my kids being taught creationism as an alternative to evolution in school.  I'd have a huge problem with that.

And this is what weakens the evolutionist position. If your system was "fact" you'd have no problem with it standing next to another theory. But you're afraid it won't hold up, so you cry "NO!"

If it was indeed fact, you could confidently sit back and watch the other theories fall apart beside it.

I'm talking about elementary school age children.  They're not mentally developed enough to distinguish between the validity of competing theories.

If you "teach" a bunch of first graders that the moon is made out of cheese, many of them are going to believe it.

Is that the kind of educational system you're advocating?

So be a parent. If my child came home saying the moon was made of cheese, I wouldn't freak out and write a letter to the school board. I'd sit down and talk to my child about it.