There is one, and only one, reason to think that Creationism is true: and that is the idea that the Bible is the "literal" and infallible word of God.
There is one principle reason to believe Evolutionism is true: the idea that reality can be determined and described by rational investigation.
To teach your pupils anything else is to lie to them. Evolution and Creation aren't competing ideas; one is a simple faith statement backed up by FUD and lies, the other is a scientific theory backed by a wealth of empirical investigation. And, frankly, I'm kinda disappointed that our country has sunk enough that this Creationism is even considered an idea worth discussing.
I suppose if you did want to discuss it in a Religious Education class you could start by discussing other science Christianity has been historically wrong about like sun going round the earth. That could put Creationism in it's proper context.
... and to teach them that this is no other point of view is a lie by omission. Your paranoia and insecurity is a testament to your fear of discussion, as is your use of emotive language.
Of course there are other points of view. Just as there is a point of view that the Earth is flat, the Black people are inherently evil, that the the Holocaust was made up as part of a Jewish conspiracy - the list of "points of view" goes on and on and on. But I'd hope you'd not present these as valid alternatives to reality.
The evidence will speak for itself, one way or another-
The evidence does speak for itself, but 11-12 year olds - and Religious Education teachers for that matter - lack the scientific background to properly assess it.
*Who* should decide if anything is worth discussing? Why shouldn't it be discussed?
Because the role of schools is to educate pupils; not provide a platform for misinformation. Does your history department discuss whether the holocaust happened? Of course it doesn't; it just teaches children what actually happened. Why then do you want to take similar denialism and promote it as if it is an alternative and equally valid proposition to reality?
ok, so if we look at what evolutionists teach, it should be able to be tested and varified like gravity can. Gravity can be demonstrated, tested, and proved in the lab and elsewhere.
As indeed, it can.
so tell me, does the evidence support the evolution of life from inanimate chemicals? Has that be tested in a lab and has it been proved that inanimate chemicals can make the leap from non living to living matter?
For the hundred, trillion, billionth time: EVOLUTION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
Why do Creationists struggle so with this insanely simple point?
And, in any case, we know for a cast iron fact that life emerged from non-life. We know, for a fact, no life 13.7 billion years and no life on earth 4.5 billion years ago. We also know that was life on Earth by 3 billion years ago, and probably 3.8 billion years ago. Therefore between these two times some kind of life emerged from non life.
If i told that you I had a baby, but there is no father, you'd call me nuts. Yet that is what evolutionsists expect us to believe with regard to evolution of life.
Your apples they are not oranges.
We know evolution happened because of the incredible array of independent evidence that it did. NOT ONE SHRED OF THAT EVIDENCE PERTAINS TO THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
Scientists know for a fact that life emerged full stop.
they dont know from where it emerged, or how it emerged.
I never said otherwise.
Scientists know that life became prolific during the cambrian period, fully formed and in great variety. They cant prove that evolution from the muck was how that life got there...they cant show that a slow evolving from the muck took place.
Life was prolific long, long before the Cambrian; there was a massive diversion of multi-cellular life in the Cambrian and specifically multi-cellular life with hard, fossilisable parts.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.