should creationism be taught in schools?

You certainly seem to have a great many criticisms of evolution, Beretta, but why should any of that mean that creationism should be taught in schools? You have mentioned nothing (save for bible excerpts) to argue in it's favour. If you are so keen to educate us upon the merits of creationism, why not provide us with some of this copious evidence you mentioned?
Simply, creationism should not be taught in science lessons because it fails to fulfil the definition of "science" used by the scientific community. When the creationist lobby insists that ID is science, they are effectively trying to redefine the word "science" in a disingenuous way.
Religious believers do not suffer from scientists lobbying churches and temples to redefine the word "god" or preach Boyle's Law from the pulpits, so why should religious groups be allowed to dictate what is taught in science classes?
Most religious pupils already get plenty of religious education from their places of worship and their families. Pupils who independently seek religious instruction will find it easy to come by. The real aim of creationist lobby groups is to win over non-Christian pupils or those doubters amongst their own flock. It is simple proselytising, and it has no place in the classroom.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi there Beretta, Here is another fun "transitional" form doing the rounds today;
Ostrich - Wikipedia
Pay particular attention to the picture of the ostrich foot;
Image - Wikipediastrich_Foot.jpg
Compare and contrast with the intermediate stages in the evolution of the horse's hoof, shown here;
Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia
I would call that evidence that the ostrich is well on its way to evolving a perfect hoof, all the better for running with. Of course if we were to screw up the environment badly enough to make the ostrich extinct, it wouldn't get a chance to be transitional, it would just be a dead end. Only time will tell, and none of us will be around to see.
See what I did there? I produced some evidence, to back up my argument. See how easy it is!
Then again, there is this; Wow! That does look a little bit like evidence. Kind of. Is this the evidence you have been crowing about? No, breakdown products from blood cells; different thing. Your line is a distortion of the true picture. This has already been dealt with here;
http://EvC Forum: Dino blood -->EvC Forum: Dino blood
and the original paper is here;
Just a moment... So because men drew pictures of dragons, and dragons (according to you) look like dinosaurs, dragons must have been real life dinosaurs, living alongside people right? People drew picture of sphinxes and minotaurs as well. Should we be out there looking for fossilised sphinxes? The similarity you describe is a coincidence. Tolkien wrote about hobbits. Hobbit-like fossils were recently discovered on Flores (please let's not get side-tracked by debating their authenticity). Does that mean that Tolkien had lived alongside real hobbits? Not even sure what you're trying to say here, but yes, the folks who drew pictures of dragons were deluded. Or lying. Or just making up a fun little story. They may have been on drugs, I cannot say. Is this all you've got? Do you really want kids to be taught about bloody dragons in science class?
To quote Lionel Hutz "Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Used the "Disable Smilies" for the first time. A in a link was turning into , which of course doesn't here work because I disabled the smilies.

---

Mutate and Survive

If we were to assume that creationism or ID should be taught in schools, at what age ought we to start? It seems clear clear that very young children would be ill-equipped to handle a "teach the controversy" type lesson, it would only confuse them.
Similarly, how long should ID be retained in education? HIgh school? To university level and beyond? I can't imagine that a postgraduate, working on a PhD could possibly be expected to hang onto creationism/ID.
Just to reiterate, I do not think that creationism has any place in schools whatsoever. I'm just curious to hear opinions on this.

---

Mutate and Survive

The quotes clearly demonstrate the dishonesty of the ID lobby. Yup, that's right, although "unguided" would be a better word than "random". Irrelevant. Right again. Then why are all ID proponents religious types, usually Christian fundamentalists? If they were honest, they would admit that they are in no doubt as to the identity of the elusive designer. It is just a way to smuggle god into the classroom. I thought that those quotes from "Of Pandas and People" showed this most eloquently. The Paley-watch argument in other words. A computer is different to a living creature, in that it is clearly designed to perform a given function, in this case, the processing of data. Tell me, what is a manatee actually FOR. A computer is clearly designed for interaction with a user, as evidenced by its keyboard and monitor. There is no such sign of utility with living creatures. Don't be naive. ID is just creationism in a cheap suit, with a bible stitched into the lining.

---

Mutate and Survive