Teachers of any subject should be teaching students HOW to think and not WHAT to think. I have no problem with teaching students that one theory of how the world began is that God created it, and another theory is that it evolved from primordial sludge.
The problem arises when those who support the teaching of creationism want that to be the only thing taught, and they want the theory of evolution discredited. And equally problematic are those who think that "science" is the be all and end all of knowledge. They are as dogmatic in their beliefs as the creationists. In the beginning, with a big bang, God (you define it) created the heavens and earth. On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good points. And I see your point. Perhaps creationism is correct but it > doesn't belong in a science class. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:02 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Discovery Magazine article on the candidates science policies > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But on a more serious note, trying to learn how to do long division and >> studying creationism vs evolution is a different ball game. >> Since evolution is still just a theory, and not a law, why not present >> another possible theory. I don't advocate doing too deep into > creationism >> in a science class but it can't hurt to briefly mention, "And there is >> another less scientific theory, creationism, that competes with > evolution. >> It's the theory that...blah blah blah." > > The answer to that is deceptively simple: It isn't a theory. > > Now, you might call it a theory because the word "theory" is used > differently by lay people and scientists. But we are talking about a > science class here and therefore we have to use the word theory in > context that scientists use it. Creationism does not purport to > provide a scientific theory. It does not provide testable hypotheses > and posits as its prime agent a force which supposedly exists outside > of the scientific realm. If you cannot use the methods of science to > test a hypothesis and the hypothesis requires something which is said > to exist outside of natural law, then it cannot be a scientific > theory. > > It might still be correct, of course. But even if correct, it is not a > scientific theory. > > Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:275898 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
