Now, I'm not sure why any theory of creation or evolution should be taught to kids who can barely read or do math, but, if you want to teach the Bible, which I have no objection to, this is the wrong approach.
What's the right approach? I'm glad you asked. Overturn this "separation of church and state" idiocy, which isn't in the constitution and is the creation of anti-religious liberals, then just teach the Bible in those localities that want it. Simple.
Astronomer/theologian Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe agrees. He is the leading Christian old-earth progressive creationist. That's why he and associate biochemist Fazale Rana have developed their testable [thus falsifiable] creation model. Dr. Gonzales is a friend and associate of theirs.
If interested, visit reasons.org.
Wow are you joking me???? First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. Also known as "separation of church and state".
If you ever go to Phila, please... please... please... go to the new Constitution center and educate yourself. Serious...
This phrase is an incessant cheap among the evobirdies. Is it a neologism, or does it simply mean, "it cannot be proven false"? Either way, it won't work as an incantation to wave away opposition.
Evolution serves as a superb paradigm in educating new biology students into the structure and categorization of plant and animal nature. Family tree, if you will. As a paradigm, we can't do without it.
Other than that--you start getting into what looks a lot like dogma. We all remember the hilarious "march to homosapiens" pictures which were supposed to convince us all that one species springs fortuitously from another--all the way from a spider monkey (with tail!) to the guy in the grey flannel suit.
And a lot of us remember that chart becoming defunct, and large questionings opening up about the actual descent of man. But we were supposed to cling to the underlying theory of progressive speciation on pain of being called "nutcases" or "knuckledraggers" "fundamentalist nose-pickers" or any such insult designed to guard against a teaching franchise being threatened!
I happen to think the obvious and least painful solution is for a scientist to behave like a scientist, and not deal in dogma at all, but deal in the limitations of the speciation stories. There's so much to teach about flora and fauna--stop playing evo priest.
And the way evos behave on the FR board lead me to believe that it is priesthood they are after--they want to preach what they want to preach and deal with no heresies. Watching them here over the past few years, looking at their posting histories (they generally post to few threads other than evo-crevo issues) and their arrogant tone--they don't even seem to be interested in conservatism itself, just in having the opportunity to find conservative Christians and rattle their cages.
I can't help but notice that ID is never brought up at my kids' school where they have separate science and religion courses (of course, it's not a public institution).
And teach the Koran in Dearborn?