Replies

"For example, you no longer here about the theory of aether, the "planetary model" of the atom is no longer taught either. Medical students no longer study the "humors", and "bleeding" patients, except rare instances, is no longer practiced."

It's interesting, though, that these things, along with alchemy, were touched on in my high school and college science calsses. Of course, they weren't taught as fact but they were "taught" for the historical value. Why should creation be exempt? Mentioning it in class for the historical value is not the same as teaching it as a viable theory. If evolution is so incontrovertible, show why creation is wrong, just like alchemy or humors. This attempt to keep it out of science classes altogether smacks of an anti-God-keep-religion-out-of-schools agenda. Saying it should be taught in philosophy or religion classes is a cop out because pretty much everyone's aware that there's no way religion is going to be taught in a public school. (Except Islam to be PC) The evolutionists come out almost looking afraid of challenging the concept of creation with their attempts to completely squash the idea.

Mentioning it in class for the historical value is not the same as teaching it as a viable theory. If evolution is so incontrovertible, show why creation is wrong

I can't think of another thing that would be interpreted as "anti-God" than teaching that the Bible has been scientifically proven wrong by evolution.

The problem isn't science, the problem is a few denominations that believe that the Bible and science conflict. That's a theological problem they have with science, not a problem science has with faith.

The only viable answer is to leave religion completely out of science classes. At most, a teacher should explain that science does not seek to pose an affront to the faith of students. Only that some faiths choose to reject science.

It's interesting, though, that these things, along with alchemy, were touched on in my high school and college science calsses. Of course, they weren't taught as fact but they were "taught" for the historical value. Why should creation be exempt? Mentioning it in class for the historical value is not the same as teaching it as a viable theory. If evolution is so incontrovertible, show why creation is wrong, just like alchemy or humors.

Well-stated. As an aspiring scientist and former science teacher, I would have no problem teaching about creationism in the context you just mentioned; in fact, I think it would be a very good way to teach it. (Though this would hardly cause flaring tempers to subside...)

BTW, I would never try to prove creation wrong in a science classroom- this can't be done. It is a non-falsifiable concept. I would demonstrate why it is a non-scientific model.

Mentioning it in class for the historical value is not the same as teaching it as a viable theory.

In another post, I said that I wouldn't have any problem with ID being mentioned in a science class, exactly as you have stated.