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?
More wise and practical advice! But perhaps our beloved crevo threads would then be abandoned...once people understood the proper venues for discussion.
Last time I checked sciences classes were required in public schools.
"How does it educate children to refuse to honestly answer honest questions?"
Real teachers, just like real scientists, know how to keep their mouth shut when they are ignorant. I hope, with your attitude and aptitude, you claim neither profession at this time.
True, it is a place for science, real science to be taught. Evolution is not science for numerous reasons which have been explained here at length. There is absolutely no reason to teach evolution. All it has done is to promote atheism and waste scientific resources on wild goose chases for bones which have never been a source of any scientific discoveries that benefit mankind. Evolution has also never been a source of ideas for scientific inquiry but instead has held back scientific inquiry. Best example of this is junk DNA. Only evolutionists would be so arrogant (or so dishonest) as to claim that 95% of the human genome - whihc is replicated in almost all the 100 trillion cells in the body - is junk and is just there so we can look for traces of evolutionary descent. Such arrogance, or such dishonest, was of course discredited shortly after that ridiculous claim was made. Instead, what science soon found was that it is not the genes that are the active managers of living things, genes are just factories which need management, but the DNA that evolutionists called junk. Luckily real scientists do not pay attention to the idiot evolutionists.