I'd be curious to know which account of creation is more widely known. That of Genesis or that of the Raven. And to have a general consensus from more sources would even further corroborate creation theories.
In terms of physical evidence, I cannot see how evolution can lose. It has devised unobserved mechanisms for anything it cannot explain. Creationists have their own trump card, too! But really, these are two different world views, and I really don't see great harm in giving each some air time in the public arena.
Have a good evening, and thanks for keeping me involved. I do appreciate it.
Oh, I don't have the strength. Don't go there. Really. Trust me.
And to have a general consensus from more sources would even further corroborate creation theories.
If you presume all creation theories are equivalent and thus freely substitutable, sure. As a matter of fact, I do, but I doubt you'd agree with my reasoning.
But really, these are two different world views, and I really don't see great harm in giving each some air time in the public arena.
Neither do I, but science class is not a public arena. It's a place for teaching and learning science. By its very nature, some viewpoints must be excluded, including the story of Raven. And the Book of Genesis. They aren't science, and special creation in general isn't science, and doesn't belong in science classes.
But there are other places where such things might easily be included. I have long thought that a class in comparative religions would be an excellent addition to school curricula, wherein the Book of Genesis and the story of Raven could be discussed at length. I don't see why such a class wouldn't pass constitutional muster, assuming that it didn't espouse one particular viewpoint over others.
I think that would be the perfect time to let the kid think and answer for himself. Don't you?
And thereby withholding information that you believe to be true? Who does that serve? How does it educate children to refuse to honestly answer honest questions?