Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

I am assuming that you are talking about showing species diversity due to dispersal and subsequent reproductive isolation and how that relates to Biblical kinds. I am also assuming that the rest of your post relates to the logical steps to separate or to meld the two? If I messed up here the rest of this post is going to very intersting for both of us. I think you deal with this more specifically further down with actual examples. You might want to discuss the possibility of mutational barriers, if they actaully exist and so forth. Micro vs. Macro are about as imprecise as the current definition of kinds, but Micro could, for clarity, be within kind and Macro as between kind. Are we talking about different methodologies or assumptions to sort out the evolutionary history of a taxonomic group? Assume baramins to sort out a set and use vicaric systematics to explain the same data set, perhaps? Statistical analysis of local distributions in taxonomicly signifigant features. Standard operating procedure, I believe. mtDNA from Neandrethals compared to Humans is online and available, good example of distinguishable distributed data sets. Ring species would also be a good example of this as well and would tie in with microevolution. Naturally this would be the next step, set up a base of knowledge and then apply it to actual data. As a side note, could you give me some references to Croizat, preferably web based but I could do some library work too. You seem to mention him a lot and I have come across a few short bios. Maybe you could give me a list of his more famous theories? Didn't quite understand the complete argument here, but I am guessing that there are problems with comparing divergence and phylogenetics in reference to physical characterstics? Where does this problem arise? How could kind systematics explain cladistics, phylogenetics, and phenotypes better than the evolutionary theory? I for one think that this step is the most interesting. The first hurdle would be cementing an old earth in radiometric dating and superpositioning of sediments, at least for comparing the two theories as a whole. Once this is established, I think creationist kinds will be seen for what they are, very ad hoc. Instead of looking just at a local data set of recent divergence, perhaps look at longer divergence times with respect to, say, changes in forefoot morphology. The plasticity of the current cladistic tree will come through in spades, showing that divergence into Orders and Families is not nearly as problematic when compared to the supernaturally infallible created kinds. I am not sure where computers come into this, besides biometry and statistical distributions. Also, I am unclear as to why cases are being excluded solely due to taxonomy. Beyond this, maybe you could show microevolutionary changes that could allow increased dispersal into and possibly over certain niches/topography. Subsequent reproductive isolation would result in the vicarism that you alluded to earlier (and to Wright's genetic drift theory, if I am remembering correctly). I can't remember the author or references, but founding populations could also come into the discussion. This would also work with a founding creationist kind as well, but it would still have problems with the longer timespans seen in the fossil record (e.g., forefoot morphologies). Perhaps a primer on Australia's ecosystem and biodiversity could be related to geographic isolation in relation to distant vicarism seen in South American marsupials? Just a thought. Yes, I remember doing this in Zoology. Making nested hierarchies using phenotypic stasis and emmergence is fun when you have a nice data set to work with. Usually, you can prefilter the data for more distinguishable phenotypes instead of dumping a lot of specificity and nuance into it. Once easier examples are understood, more complex situations can be dealt with.Overall, I can see what you are driving at and it could be boiled down with very simple vocabulary and assuming some base knowledge in statistics (mean and stdev might be enough). I also think you could pull back to the bigger picture (both in time and in geography) once local changes in species can be shown. The overall evidence for evolution, to me at least, is the most important when looking at the totality of the fossil record and extant species. Created kinds will seem trivial or nebulous at the best when compared to an actual mechanistic approach. I don't mean to sound totally biased, but from your examples I can't quite clue into the supposed problems in evolution that using baramins elucidates.Hope I didn't mistranslate what you were talking about, and as usual, let me know if I did. No matter, I kind of like the curriculum that I set up, hehehe.PS- I think I actually outdid you in word count this time as well.

hehe, I have to look up his vocabulary sometimes, we seem to use a different lexicon it seems. I might start asking him some background on his source material in the near future. After that I think I might crack the McFall enigmatic codices.

The US is not in the business of teaching one religion over the other, or at least it shouldn't be. And I think you hit the nail on the head, we could make quite a few ad hoc theories based on other creation stories and show evidence in the same vein as AIG or ICR, but how does that really inform us of the true physical nature of this planet. If someone wants to teach both in a private school, that's their business, but at state run schools the science curriculum should reflect theories that are supported by the overwhelming majority of evidence. The only theory of species origins that has held up under this criteria is the Theory of Evolution.What I think should be stressed more in the classroom is that Evolution is a Theory. The teacher/professor should use language like "the Theory of Evolution states . . ." or "the evidence seems to support . . ." and so forth. Simply stating that Evolution is true beyond a shadow of a doubt is not science (and this coming from an evo, don't be shocked). In fact, I see nothing wrong in pointing out the evidenciary weakpoints in the ToE, but at the same time showing evidence that is very concrete and straightforward. But to simply bring in a theory because of conservative christian pressure when it is simply not supported by the evidence we have today is even a worse faux pas.Perhaps the best route to take is to stress that the science classroom is there to make sure you understand what the ToE is saying and what evidence there is to back it up. It shouldn't be indoctrination into one mold or the other. Leave explaining creation theories up to comparative religion classes and Sunday schools. This way it will open up more jobs for electrical engineers.

Pionts well taken. What a theory is and then how to test it are the basis of science no matter the subject. My post seemed to be as complex as the subject as it turns out, hehe.As far as getting students in over their heads, I think it is a real possibility. Even though I undestand the workings of the cell now (after a bachelors and working in the field) in my high school days it was still a mystery. Critical thought and logic are things that need training, IMO, and without them complex issues dealing with evidence and inferrence can become cloudy or even incomprehensible. Maybe I'm not giving our teens today the props they deserve, who knows.