Personally, I'd just like them to teach all the facts, data, and arguments not supportive of ToE, and force the correction of the vast overstatements used to indoctrinate kids into accepting ToE.
Okay, I totally agree with that. Of course it should be in conjunction with teaching all the evidence which went into formulating the ToE as well.
Now what on earth does that have to do with Creationism? Or teaching Creationism?
Teaching good science, including the "edges" or "issues" within a theory has nothing to do with delivering support for another theory.
And I find this sort of interesting. If you want all the negatives of Evo taught, do you also demand that all the counterevidence to Abrahamic Creationism be taught? See that's exactly where 2/3rd's of the population might not know what they are really asking for. If they ask for this, what they will get... what they must get... is the refutation of Creationism in public school. There is much more evidence against that myth than anything for it.
Or are you actually desiring that only refutations of Evo be taught, along with anything positive about Creo without any refuting evidence?
By the way 2/3rds of a population wanting something does not make it right, or worthy to be taught in science. About that many people thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 911. If they desired that be taught in history class, at least as an "alternative theory" of modern history, would that be correct?
And don't speak for those 2/3rds as if they are somehow deep scholars who had their "faith" in evo shaken by great amounts of research that actual scientists are somehow missing. Unless of course you wish to show some of their wonderful scholarship on the field of science? Armchair science is just as lame as armchair generalship.
I still don't get you. You seem to flit back and forth between ID and full creo. Shouldn't you be picking a side and sticking with it?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
