Education about LIFE? while we can!

You could offer a class called DISEASE, ogon, and put demon stories, shamanic practices, and modern medicine side by side. But what would be the point? You'd be presenting various slices of folklore alongside one slice of science while ignoring the fundamental distinction in the sources and methodologies of each. That only misrepresents the character of all of it.Education exists to inform, not obscure. Each of these things is best understood in its proper context. The second statement is not accurate.First, you appear to be talking here about creationism rather than creation itself as a phenomenon.
(The latter represents the core of all study in art.)Second, it's not true that scientists in general 'ridicule' the idea of the supernatural. Some do, some don't.The point is that creationism as a concept enjoys no support from scientists as valid science. Evolutionary theory is based on scientific evidence.
Creationism is based on ancient literature. All of it belongs in schools.Evolution should be taught in school science classes.
Creation stories should be taught in school humanities classes.
Creationism as a social phenomenon should be taught in school history or sociology classes.Just an aside: Why do so many people talk as if science is the only class schools offer?A judge rules ID unconstitutional and the next day preachers thunder about how the ruling 'shuts God out of our schools.'As if an art student couldn't sculpt Buddhas or paint crucifixion scenes all day long. As if a creative writing student had been prevented from composing Hindu psalms.Silly._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.