Percy writes:
Can I just say I don't remember saying that we should teach creation in a 'science' class.
But you didn't reply to my
Message 6 that explains why that's precisely what you're proposing. If you really think that's not what you're proposing then reply to the message that addresses that issue, not to the message that just assumes it since I already advanced my argument in the earlier message.
Just as I didn't say teach evolution in a religious lesson. What I did say is, why not discuss them side by side, just as we do in this forum, and suggested call the lesson LIFE.
There are two significant problems with this. First, in what part of the curriculum could a "lesson" called LIFE be placed except science? Second, if LIFE somehow isn't part of the science curriculum, that means you're proposing removing evolution from the science curriculum. Removing evolution from the science curriculum is the dream of all creationists. Not going to happen.
What would be reasonable and possible is to teach a course on comparative religions, or on the history of conflicts between science and religion, or some such type of course. I suppose it would go in the history department. I already said this in
Message 6, the aforementioned message that you didn't reply to, and others have said pretty much the same thing. As long as evolution stays in science class, creationism stays out, and nothing is taught that is false, then all will be well.
I know you're only one guy against many in this thread, and that you therefore have to pick and choose what messages you're going to reply to, so don't sweat a reply to
Message 6 if you don't have the time. But I did want to make clear that I didn't just assume you were advocating teaching creationism in science class.
--Percy