Education about LIFE? while we can!

Let's be clear about what you're suggesting. It's not simply a suggestion that both creationism and evolution be taught in public schools. That could easily be done by including creationism in a class on comparative religion, and that's not what you're really suggesting. What you're suggesting is that both creationism and evolution be taught in science class.The short answer is that science doesn't currently include any creationist viewpoints. Since science class teaches science, by definition the teaching of things that are not science, such as astrology, ESP and creationism, are excluded.A slightly longer answer is that creationism is not an alternative to just evolution. Creationism believes the world is 6000 years old, and that affects geology, geophysics, cosmology, astronomy, physics, history, anthropology, paleontology and oceanography, and I'm sure I've left out a few. Teaching creationism would affect all these fields.The problem for creationism is that the central ideas it challenges are based upon mountains of evidence gathered over hundreds of years. Creationism's central weakness is a lack of scientific support, and this forces creationists to avoid scientific venues such as peer-reviewed journals and conferences and instead follow a strategy of presenting their ideas to those least qualified to assess them, namely the lay public, school boards and legislatures.Creationism will get into public schools the same way that everything else taught in public schools got there: legitimate research and scholarship. What creationists are doing instead of research and scholarship is writing books for the lay public and lobbying school boards and legislatures. It speaks volumes that the vast bulk of those sympathetic to creationist views are non-scientists, and that core creationist adherents are almost exclusively evangelical Christians.--Percy

Addressing your questions at any length would draw this thread off-topic, so very briefly...You are correct, abiogenesis (origin of life) is not the same thing as evolution (origin of species). Science has a number of competing theories for abiogenesis on earth at the present time, but most scientists working in the life sciences believe that life arose through natural processes. Virtually all legitimate scientists in all fields accept evolution.Nothing is ever proved in science. All that can be done is to support a hypothesis with evidence and argument. A hypothesis which through the process of experiment, observation and replication convinces a significant number of scientists in the relevant field becomes an accepted theory.And returning to the topic...We don't teach creationism in science class because creationism isn't science. It isn't science because a significant number of scientists have not yet become convinced of its validity. By and large, creationists believe that it is impossible to convince scientists that creationist ideas have any validity, but desiring that creationism be taught in science class anyway they go about writing books of nonsense for the lay public, and lobbying school boards, text book publishers and state legislatures for representation of creationism in science class anyway.That you, a layperson with virtually no understanding whatsoever of science in general or biology in particular, are here arguing for representation of creationism in science class is a measure of the success of the creationist strategy. For example, no doubt you would tend to vote for people running for school board who advocated teaching creationism in science class.The vulnerability of the lay public (i.e., people like you) to creationist appeals is why their strategy has proven so effective. Creationists have discovered that it isn't necessary to convince scientists that creationism is science. All they have to do is convince non-scientists (which is the vast majority of the public) that scientists are screwing over creationists, and that the unfair treatment requires remedies by school boards, text book publishers and state legislatures.--Percy

But you didn't reply to my Message 6 that explains why that's precisely what you're proposing. If you really think that's not what you're proposing then reply to the message that addresses that issue, not to the message that just assumes it since I already advanced my argument in the earlier message. There are two significant problems with this. First, in what part of the curriculum could a "lesson" called LIFE be placed except science? Second, if LIFE somehow isn't part of the science curriculum, that means you're proposing removing evolution from the science curriculum. Removing evolution from the science curriculum is the dream of all creationists. Not going to happen.What would be reasonable and possible is to teach a course on comparative religions, or on the history of conflicts between science and religion, or some such type of course. I suppose it would go in the history department. I already said this in Message 6, the aforementioned message that you didn't reply to, and others have said pretty much the same thing. As long as evolution stays in science class, creationism stays out, and nothing is taught that is false, then all will be well.I know you're only one guy against many in this thread, and that you therefore have to pick and choose what messages you're going to reply to, so don't sweat a reply to Message 6 if you don't have the time. But I did want to make clear that I didn't just assume you were advocating teaching creationism in science class.--Percy