Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Creation sciences should be taught that include, biology, genetics, natural selection, mutations, natural sciences, geology, soil science, math, computers, mechanical engineering but just omit any reference to an old earth stuff because saying its an old earth without refuting Gentry is proof that evolution is not grounded in science but grounded in myth! Myths might well make you feel good but thats not science either refute Gentry or take all references of an old earth out of the sciences, science is not a feel good game but about teaching our children the truth!!!!!!!

if they can not publicly refute Gentry's Primordial polonium halos.

According to the ideas of the Enlightenment..that Men will choose Truth for themselves..will seek it out and embrace truth on their own without any interference from anyone..especially the State..Darwinism and Evolution seem to have some credibility problems that browbeating and belittling school children are not going to solve.

Philosophy should be taught in science, because science is a methodology on the back of 'philosophy of science'. I am only proposing, however, a brief history of ideas on the subject at hand.People used to believe x because of a.
Then they changed that to y because of b.
Science has shown that x and y are problematic and that z is a better explanation because of c, d, e and f (whilst also consistent with a and b)

Creation / evolution is at times like modern medicine / alternative medicine. When I asked a heart surgeon if he ever preforms chelation therapy instead of heart surgery to see his reaction.
I found he was unable to discuss in good faith an alternative idea because of how much he studied to become a heart specialists. I told him he was wrong and should consider it and his response was who in the heck are you to tell me about chelation therapy. He might be a good heart surgeon but the medicine of the 21 century might well include alternative medicine like chelation therapy. What an attitude of superiority!!!!!!!

Why lie to our kids tell them the truth that the evolutionists stole their theory from the bible but then switched young to old and refused to honor the bible as the source of their micro-evolution principles.

You all seem to be divorced from any social context by the scientific method. You seem to have no idea about how your ideas will play out in a classroom, or society at large, because that doesn't figure in the scientific method. You all seem to have no consideration for the decision of the invidual, or parents, or society about what to teach.

Sure I would support the right of parentmembers of the blonde hair blue eyes appreciation society to teach their children as they see fit. Also to do this with shared money of society at large, on the basis of equal money per child. Since the rights too choose are guaranteed it would not promote nazism. Anything is better then being forced.

Unfortunately, the fundies are powerful enough that if you belong to the church, you *have* to take RE.

In the class room evolution and creation can be discussed by intelligent instructors.

we happen to mention that perhaps science does not have all the answers.

Creationism is only indirectly dealing with religion. in fact it deals with ideas about origins.

I predict my reasoning will become the idea that overthrows the present censorship.

Its like they are saying my sides ideas are illegal in schools but in no way is the state giving a opinion on their accuracy.
Hogwash.
The state is not neutral.

When you can demonstrate, outside of your own desires, that such is a requirement for the design principle to not be valid, in and of itself, by order and law alone, your point would have validity. As such it does notI dont know absolutely the ultimate source of the materials that allows gravity to work, but hey, guess what, it doesIs it true that law and order exist? As such it is sufficient to establish a valid argument, scientific in nature that allows the design principle. Only a fool or a person void of any reasoning abilites would deny such a simple principleAgain if you would explain why these two are necessary and why they would invalidate the argument as such, it might make your contention more reasonableOtherwise your just ramblingDawn Bertot