A Request for Tranquility Base

--I know this is a question directed toward TB, however, I would simply like to make a simple addition. As we find when we do encounter discussions of highly intellectual debate here at evcforum, there is increasingly great emphasis placed on the concept of interpretation. I would therefor, recommend there be a segregated section in the syllabus whereby this concept is revealed and delved into at the highest depth possible. Without completely understanding these principles, the simplest questioning of current scientific hypothesis and their fundamental basis in data & evidence are unable to begin crossing the students minds.

"1. Offering simplistic explanations such as "Genesis said it, therefore it's true" won't fly.2. Attacking ToE rather than providing evidentiary support for creationism won't fly. These kids are going to demand evidence one way or the other - the curriculum is designed to present the kids with evidence for evolutionary biology, then give them the tools needed to analyze at least superficially the evidence. I'd expect the creationist POV to be presented the same way.3. They will have a pretty good foundation in science, but won't (probably) be able to really understand extremely technical details. However, they should be able to get the gist of most arguments. If there is documentary support - even highly technical - for the argument, it can be presented as additional reading. You will need to provide some explanation that can be understood by a smart student, but that shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. After all, creationism gains adherents regularly by appealing to a completely lay audience. Here's a chance to present evidence to a somewhat more knowledgeable group.4. These are budding biologists. "Wow, life is really complex therefore goddidit" will be insufficient."
--I agree with all the above."I appreciate your feedback, TC, however you should realize that the course is not designed as an evolution-vs-creation debate, nor is it designed to thoroughly investigate creationism."
--I understand and agree that this isn't the case in a bio classroom, nor should it be what we make of this opportunity.--Is this a creation vs. non-creation or is this an evolution vs. non-evolution type of thing?"I am merely offering the opportunity to creationists to provide at least ONE compelling, evidentiary argument in favor of their stance. As it stands now, the kids will probably get at best a brief selection of a couple of articles from AiG or ICR as the "best" that creationism can come up with. You should as aware as I am that these don't necessarily provide good evidence."
--I have also found this to be true, if this were to be what is supplied, a vat of sophistry & other such appeals to incredulity this opportunity will indeed drop like a lead balloon. If I were to present an article explaining an alternative to the ToE, Initial Cosmogony, abiogenesis, etc. there would be required a little more that single compelling argument from a specific research query. Maybe what is required is a brief, general, but relatively detailed thesis in support of an alternative to one of the above. What kind of time period are we talking about here before your input must be given?------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-06-2002]

Is this an annual opportunity? I may have an interest in jumping on this next year if possible.------------------