Looking at geological formations such as the Grand Canyon, we would look at the possibility of lots of water, little bit of time.
The overwhelming consensus does not support your position. Why bother teaching something that has so little evidence. I mean really, how many professional geologists agree with you that the grand canyon is a young feature.
Instead of seeing evolution when we look at the fossils in the rocks, we could look at the possibility that most of the fossils formed in one big disaster and that most of the fossils show catastrophe and rapid destruction rather than hundreds of millions of years of slow death.
Can you demonstrate that
most fossils show catastrophe and rapid destruction?
We could compare and contrast the possibilities that many layers of sedimentary rock formed rapidly rather than slowly.
If sediments were formed in the Cambrian by a flash flood, it does not support a young earth.
We could allow for the possibility that the fossils present in the Cambrian explosion represent the first things to be covered in sediment at the lowest levels of the geologic column and that they were all created which is why we can't find their precursors at lower levels.
Except there are older fossils than what is found in the Cambrian, for example, stromatolites. And can you show me evidence of 'created' and how we can test this.
The way I see it is that so many more possibilities would be available for investigation and who knows we may find out things we never would have contemplated given evolution as the only acceptable route.
The way I see it is your whole post has religion written all over it. Everything you said is honed to fit the biblical account. This is introducing god and the supernatural into the science class. This opens the floodgates to all sorts of problems.
™ Version 4.2
