[Paradox]

Ironically, Darwin himself probably would have supported this approach. As he stated in the "Origin of Species," "A fair result can only be obtained by balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

But there aren't "two sides", there is Evolution, the one with the most scientific support, even if that support is as tenuous as its detractors would have you believe, and then there are the MANY faith-based versions. Why stop at Genesis? What about {insert your favorite , Utnapishtin? Dogon tribes Alien theory? Yadda-yadda theory..).

I say, you make a mention of the other theories, but teach the one that has the most evidence and support..

[ShadowAce]

but teach the one that has the most evidence and support..

If they did only that, we'd still be teaching that the world is flat.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Evidence is of course in the eye of the beholder. There is very little empirical evidence that objectively leads one to conclude that a natural process of evolution lead to the wide and varied species we see today. You see, most people begin with a presupposition. For scientists, that presupposition is naturalism. They then procede to conduct science, and all facts are seen through this lense. I do not fault them for this. Naturalism is essential for conducting science. They should attempt to explain things in natural terms. Why, however, should I be surprised to learn that they collected evidence and determined that life came about naturally? Science is by definition going to conclude that life is the product of a natural process. Given these facts, I say we teach science. That means teaching the philosophical underpinnings of science.

It is very telling that naturalists are so vehemently opposed to the introduction of teachings that are critical of evolution. Could this be because their theory isn't as bullet proof as they might have us believe? After all, if the theory is so solid, and the evidence so overwhelming, what's the big fuss? Surely the kids will come to agree that everything evolved from non-living matter by a long series of chance mutations. I mean, come on. It's obvious, right? The truth which is seen in their actions and which betrays their claims is that their theory isn't that solid, and the evidence isn't that overwhelming and that if children were taught the problems with evolutionary theory (and believe me, they exist) they might *gasp* not believe evolutionary theory! And of course, we can't have that.

[berned]

I say, you make a mention of the other theories, but teach the one that has the most evidence and support..

According to whom?

"The Universe is comprised of THREE dimensions. This is according to modern science and has the most evidence and support."

LATER...

>"The Universe is comprised of FOUR dimensions. This is according to modern science and has the most evidence and support."

LATER...

>"The Universe is comprised of TEN dimensions. This is according to modern science and has the most evidence and support."

The beat goes on, doesn't it?