Well, I found the book where I learned about the four groups of fossils. Fossils, An Introduction to Prehistoric Life, by William H. Matthews (1962). In the chapter, How Fossils are Formed and Preserved, Matthews writes: "For convenience in classification, fossils are arranged into four major groups according to their method of preservation. These methods do not actually represent four distinct and seperate kinds of fossil-making; rather, they generally work in combination, several frequently being involved in the preservation of any given fossil."
The author goes on to name and describe the different classes and sub-classes, citing examples of combining of methods, etc. There's a nice photo of a Trachodon "mummy" in here.
"All I'm asking you to do is tell me what you're telling me. If we're supposed to be teaching it in science classes, it ought to make sense."
If I were to teach a science class about fossils, I would tell them that fossils are the remains of life that existed in the past, portions thereof that have been captured in stone. I would describe the different classes of fossils and how different chemicals and minerals replace hard and soft tissues, as well as what environmental conditions are necessary for fossil formation.
Then, having done my utmost to present the evidence and facts about fossils, minus any philosophical interpretation thereof, I would leave it at that. If a student asked "how long ago", I would say that no one knows with any absolute certanity. There are several different theories which you can read about, here and here and here, etc., pointing out a balanced, understandable collection of uniformatarian and catastrophism books, articles and papers which the student could consult, thereafter drawing his own conclusions.
Depending upon the age of the student, I could talk some about how different assumptions effect the interpretation of data, but I'd have to weigh that on a case-by-case basis.
My beliefs concerning how and when they were formed are not relevant to primary and secondary classroom situations, because they merge physical evidence and demonstratable facts with philosophical interpretation. Those questions, I would consider to be, university, or at least, college level subjects. In those environments, a civil, no holds barred debate should be the rule of the day, as opposed to a mutual admiration society.
"There's an astonishing worldwide preponderance of evidence that they do." [Fossils demonstrating the succession of life].
Yes, that is what I was taught in school. I believed it too. Now, however, I look at the evidence and the facts, through older eyes, and from a different perspective. This latter perspective does not have an absolute answer for every possible question and neither does the former.
"Does your system explain that?"
Well, to a limited extent it does, but then that brings us back to the young earth/old earth, flood/no flood controversies, and their requsite assumptions and problems. The idea that large animal fossil beds are located in some areas, and not in others is answered by catastrophism, albeit not all that comprehensively, as it makes for even more questions, but at least it's an answer worth investigating, right along with the old mountains view.
"It isn't FR that's your problem; it's the whole world."
You know, in a way, that is the situation. It's roots, however, are theological, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
The problem? You're telling the kids we haven't learned anything since ancient times about what fossils are and what you can tell from them. You just don't like what we know so you reject it. Letting you teach would be a crime against education.
This is the Luddite aspect of creationism: the cheering for the gaps, the consignment of well-founded modern knowledge to the waste-bins of "speculative," "conjectural," "controversial."
If paleontology were medicine, what you propose would be keeping medical students at the Ancient Greek level of medical expertise. You would send them out to maim and kill, when all that we have learned is in fact there to be taught. Educator malfeasance.
Nothing in Walt Brown's stuff that I have ever read comes close to explaining the real-world geologic column. I believe he tries to use the sorting action of the Great Flood for this purpose and flood sorting actions won't do it.
Walt Brown's theories (and any other Young Earth theories outside of that Omphalos thing) aren't just inadequate. They're ridiculous. You think it's adequate to excuse not teaching the real scoop with your mumble about "I'd point them to a few sources from all sides and let them make up their own minds." You're being paid to teach, not mislead.
You're at war with the truth. God should not be telling you to do this.