Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

I would also like to see some time available to teach some real details of the so-called scientific creationism. However, there is not an unlimited amount of time in the classroom. What would we leave out?Additionally, I certainly wouldn't teach it for the reasons given.1) Teaching how science is done.
Other than a quick overview of the history this isn't a good reason for actually treaching creationism. Since science discards theories that are falsified creationism was thrown out. To teach it as an alternative theory that explains the facts would be wrong.(a small side note, perhaps you could start a thread on the
"A good example is that natural selection predicts that functional features of organisms will conform to engineering design principles--but this is the same prediction of intelligent design!" comment. I disagree. )2)I think the time could be better spent teaching the ToE better. You note that things are taught as "disconnected facts". I agree that the present education isn't always all it could be. Would taking time out for a focus on one religious view not distract from teaching evolutionary biology correctly?3) This one I agree with. A bit of the history is a useful context in any of the sciences. With my views, I would want to take a bit of time at this point to attack creationism head on. I do think that there could be a lot of political problems in some parts of the states if this was done.4)As others have asked. What is there to "scientific creationism" that could be taught under the criteria you give here?

I might comment, as an aside, that the rest of your first paragraph doesn't add much to the debate under this thread. Sometimes less is more.The quoted statement is a bit mysterious but it seems to suggest "testable hypotheses" in the creationist area? Could you start a thread on these if you feel like defending that point?

I'm sorry I asked. :S

Precisely correct Buz! Excellent!When you take out the untestable (unscientific) part of creationism you are left with exactly nothing. All you have left is the ToE. And it is far beyond an "hypothesis" just because it has been tested a lot and not falsified.What we were asking for was what would be taught in science class about creationism. You have just (even if you didn't realize it) agreed that there is nothing to teach. rofl.Care to try again?

Precisly what part of creationism would we introduce that would help teach how science is done? I think that lots of generalized discussion has gone by now. How about some specific details.Also what is "transformism".

Off topic. I think this was all thrashed out elsewhere but I can't find it.Perhaps you could start another thread on the topic.

Huh?
Most of that is gibberish to me. Perhaps you can start a thread and added posts for each of those points. Explaining them as you wouild in an average high school class.In that case, you would use only simple English terms and use them to explain any jargon that needs to be used.Separately you might want to, in simple words, explain microevolution and how it is different from macroevolution and where the boundary is.Here is the thread for that:
http://EvC Forum: 'Micro' evolution vs 'macro' evolution -->EvC Forum: 'Micro' evolution vs 'macro' evolution

I'm still waiting for someone to say what we should be teaching. My grade 9 son's socials text is discussing evolution and has a paragraph on creationism (basically some people believe that God created everything all at once). It also has a paragraph pointing out that the bible isn't a science text.If anyone needs the exact words just ask.Meanwhile, what more could we teach than the above couple of paragraphs. They make up maybe 10 % of the text discussing evolution so it seems to me to be too much time given what is worth teaching.

You speak Bradish!!! Thank you for the translation and answer.

But actually I'm still waiting for David Fitch to get back to us and tell us what he did mean.(I have been figuring since the first post with it's rather odd statments that the very first line of it is a lie. Perhaps I will be shown up as wrong soon. I hope so. )

A final bump in case I am wrong about our professor.

You seem to be muddling up the ToE and the facts that it is meant to explain.Where you introduce the philosophy of science and the nature of scientific inquiry is an important issue however. Once the tentative nature of it and what a theory is is explained I don't think you have to keep on reminding students of that.The ToE is about as true as any complex explanation we have for anything is so I don't think there is any big risk to leting the students get that feeling.

I'd open a topic on this if you want to discuss it. It is of course, a silly statement. Since it is as circular a statement as one can make.Of course things that have been "made" have a maker if you define things as being made if and only if they have a maker. That is what it sounds like you are saying. If you are saying something more interesting please open a thread on the topic.

---

Common sense isn't

Oh, well, my daughter's text mentioned, in a sidebar, that people used to think that living things were all formed at once but that is now understood to be wrong. (something to that effect -- I could find the exact quote if she has the text here).That's about the correct history in a nutshell.

---

Common sense isn't

Try to remember, you're conversing with someone who hears voices. It might make it easier to remain calm.

---

Common sense isn't