Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Okay now lets immediately get down to specifics of what should be taught.Age 4-5, just teach about creativity of people, and pupils being creative themselves a lotage 6-12 teach about creativity of people in comparison to creations in natureage 12-16 teach formalized logic of creation the general principles, emphasis on practical skills such as tracing back origins to decisions, distinguishing free behaviour from forced behaviour. Explain subjectivity and objectivity, that science cant speak about what is evil or good about what is loving or hateful. Teach universal creationism, that the universe is created by a free act, and that the universe will end by a free act, final judgement.So an aptitude test might involve such things like a student determining in how far a suspect acted of their own free will, or they were forced. And then determining for the creation of a specie how much freedom there is in an ecological system and how much it was forced. Determining when something becomes more likely to happen etc.

That would be a violation of personal integrity of creationists, to first set up their beliefs as magic, and then to bust their beliefs with natural selection. And every student will be left wondering what they are allowed to believe to pass the test. And then the sciencefans would also be mortified by such indoctrination. You should be more generous from your luxurious position of having mountains of evidence for evolution. So simply present the best possible evidence for creation you can think of. That way evolution would win out in comparison that the students can make themselves independently. But you would be hardpressed to find an evolutionist teacher to try to make the best possible case for creation.

I think the rule is that science may not teach about the value of things. So just stick to that rule, filter creationist knowledge with that rule, not teaching the parts which talks about the value of things, and then its generally not religious. So I think you can teach about the universe being created, and ending with judgement, because that does not say anything about the value.And lets not forget that it was the social-darwinists who violated science the most by proving, and differentiating inherent worth of human beings. The worst possible education ever in Hitlerschools where they taught Darwin, where they posited values of the Germans as scientifically established. That is what is to be avoided in class. Saying you need to have objective evidence for everything as you do, just leads people to make up objective evidence for worth.

If you let science be free, then science will indeed be free, and people will not be free, but subjugated by science. Science is a real thing of itself, you seem to not comprehend this. So basically you are letting loose a beast which evidently hurts peoples feelings.It is better to let students see that there are all kinds of evidence, some strong, some weak, but evidence never the less. Im sure that as a scientist not all evidence is up to standard. You have to use reasonability, leaps of faith too. Simply posit the ether for instance as the medium through which gravity flows in space. Now that turned out not correct, but was it was scientific enough to start with, evidence enough.

The problems science has with creationism, is the same problem it has with free will.Anyway what specifically would be taught.

I think teaching students about a belief in creation as being comparable to political ideology, or dyslexia would make students hate science. I have firsthand experience of it now, reading what you all write im rather inclined to chuck the whole enterprise.

Oh ofcourse, calling my posts inane ramblings must be the unavoiable hurting peoples feelings, which seems to be part of the scientific method. Its quite obvious that you all are making science impopular.

There is no mainstream hard scientific evidence for free will of people. There is no paper on it that definetely establishes its real. So you can teach creation as one of those things science doesnt have a handle on but which many people believe is real regardless. And then you can use the soft-science approach, using weaker standards of evidence.