[<1/1,000,000th%]

Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.

Sure. Jump right to graduate level biology and archaeology subjects when the students are reading at 4th grade levels. That'll work.

[TalonDJ]

Sure. Jump right to graduate level biology and archeology subjects when the students are reading at 4th grade levels. That'll work.

Reread what was written:
Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.

A 'Framework for Understanding' would be logic, deductive reasoning, and the scientific method. All of which are currently taking a back seat to teaching kids evolution as if it was fact. The only fact is we don't know if it is a fact. Now before someone jumps in to say I 'don't understand science' which seems to be the number one counter argument here Let me clarify to say KIDS DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE. So rather than teaching them the biggest most complicated theory out there, how about we instead teach them how to think for themselves. It does not matter how much evidence supports or refutes Evolution. If the next generation is raised to except whatever theory is the most widely used without question then science will be dead on arrival.