Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

quote:

---

Prof John Bryant, professor emeritus of cell and molecular biology at the University of Exeter, agreed that alternative viewpoints should be discussed in science classes. "If the class is mature enough and time permits, one might have a discussion on the alternative viewpoints. However, I think we should not present creationism (or intelligent design) as having the same status as evolution."

---

[My emphasis] I find this bit scarily pathetic - "I think we should not" !!! - although tone is difficult to transmit through the written word, this should read "Never should we" whether creationism is discussed or not. As others have pointed out, evolution is science and creationsim is not. Period.In my mind, there should be an introductory lesson that discusses as many origin stories as possible, and then describes how evolution/abiogenesis/geology/cosmology arise simply through application of the scientific method and that the results do seem to run counter to the origin stories. Emphasise that "Last Thursdayism" is the great get-out clause, and that it is still possible to believe any of the origin stories, while still studying, learning, and understanding evolution and the other sciences. Also point out that many (majority of) adherents of the multitude of religions behind the various origin stories actually accept science's take on origins, and relax the literal reading of their texts to allow this. Explain the fallacious and weak-faith-inspired reasoning behind intelligent design, and offer a faith-based theistic science approach as the obvious choice for those religiously inclined.This should be presented as a cross-discipline lesson involving the science departemnts, geography (for the geology element), history, and religious education (if they have one) - and why not have a member of each department present to take just a few questions - no big debate. One double lesson (80 minutes) should be sufficient.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Hi Mod - I'm not sure if my early post Message 16 in this thread was suffciently without merit to deserve comment, or that you simply overlooked it Either way, let me know what you think as I think it also fits into your discussion with straggler.

Sorry to jump in. Of course we cannot say that. Creation could have been yesterday, or last thursday. Creation could have been as per Genesis. It doesn't look like any of these. But that doesn't mean it wasn't. No. But we have sufficient evidence to be as confident as we can be that life can arise by natural means. That doesn't mean it did. That doesn't rule out your chosen creator in any way. But what it does do is dismiss the claim that a creator is *required* to bring about life from non-life in this Universe.