What are your thoughts on the present policies wherein teachers and textbooks usually mention Alchemy and discuss that subject, teach the history of the early roots of Chemistry in that now rather discredited field of inquiry, and applaud and credit those alchemist with the invention and manufacture of almost all our present chemistry glassware.
Since I'm not aware of exactly what is taught, I have no opinion on it. In the abstract, I'd have no problem teaching it as a part of the history of chemistry. Moreover, I'd have no problem teaching the history of the development of the ToE, including the fact that before Darwin, most naturalists were creationists of some sort.
Generally, I'm not opposed in principal to teaching anything that's accurate. Of course, there isn't time to teach it all, so priorities need to be set. But as long as what is taught is accurate, I'm good with it.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung