Yeah, too bad they didn't listen to the priests and shamans or even to the common people who all knew that the earth wasn't flat but an oblate spheroid that orbited the sun and not the other way around. Oh, those silly scientists...
Science has shown itself to be fallible in the past. It would be the height of arrogance to think it will never be found so again. Refusing to challenge the concepts of science rather defeats the purpose of science itself.
And no one here claims that science is infallible but just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything.
If we were to follow your advice we should not only teach astronomy but also astrology, Velikovsky's catastrophism or von Daeniken's nonsense.
And rest assured that the concepts of science get challenged all the time however, this doesn't mean that all positions deserve equal standing because if we gave every crackpot the same attention there'd be no time to do any serious research anymore.
As far as creationism is concerned (especially the YE variety), it has been shown to be untenable as science long before Darwin.
Like everyone else, your opinions are based on your perceptions. If you wish to be a product of primordial ooze, be my guest.
OK, I see this quite often but I still don't understand where you get the idea that we wish to be a product of primordial ooze?
Just because we defend a scientific theory doesn't mean we wish to be a product of primordial ooze as you put it. This is not a matter of what we want or don't want to be true but following the evidence no matter where it leads and how unpleasant it may be to some people.
To simply accept what one wants to be true is rather a trait I've observed in creationists (I'm no kin to monkeys, I chose to believe I'm specially created, etc.).
Now as far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less whether I'm the descendant of some billion year old primordial ooze or two supernaturally animated lumps of clay from only a couple of millennia ago.
Whatever happens to be the case doesn't affect my self-image in the least and I don't see why it should.
You make the assumption I wish Creationism to be taught as science. I do not. You do not try to teach about apples in a class about oranges!
If you check my posts, I specifically said NOT necessarily in the same class.
There is nothing wrong with creationism in a theology/philosophy class. This is not to push religion. Like it our not, our country is founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. Rights untouchable by government because they were not granted by government.
This class could cover Socrates, Locke, Batiste and Montesquieu along with creationism and the Bible's role in American law. I have a set of school textbooks from the 1800's. Biblical lessons were often integrated into these books. They were just decent, moral lessons on not stealing, being honest, etc.
Guess that was before a classical education got run over by the 'progressive' one.