Creationist/ID Education should be allowed

You are making some fundamental mistakes in your descriptions of science and how it works.For example, evolution is a biological or life science, and does not deal with cosmology.But even more fundamental is your use of "theory" and "law" --absolutely incorrect.Here are some definitions that might help:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

In these anti-evolution laws, "critical thinking" is a creationist code word that is applied to evolution and anything else that contradicts their religious beliefs. In practice it means letting their particular religious beliefs, and any ideas they can find to support them, no matter how contrary to evidence, be accorded equal weight when offered in opposition to agreed-upon scientific theory.In other fields of science creationists really have no interest. Its not as if they were fighting for better science education!Letting creationists dictate how science is conducted and taught is like letting first graders dictate their curriculum.

I don't mean to rattle your cage, or set up straw men.I'm just venting against the inherent dishonesty of creationists pretending to improve science by the various things they come up with to destroy it."Teach the controversy" and "critical thinking" are two of my pet peeves.Under the guise of improving science, creationists are really trying to destroy it and to peddle their particular brand of woo in its place.That is dishonest from start to finish.

Yes, I realize we are on the same side.Critical thinking really is being pushed by creationists. It is a core part of the Discovery Institute's model law.

Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution. Texas’s science standards require that students analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking.

​

Discovery Institute’s Science Education Policy | Discovery Institute

The second strain does not purport to be concerned with student rights, and cites the need to help students develop "critical thinking skills" on "controversial issues." To this end, it permits teachers to discuss "the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories." The listed "theories" often cover several topics of concern to the religious right: primarily evolution and abiogenesis, but also global warming, human cloning and stem cell research. One example of this strain is 2008’s Louisiana Science Education Act.

​

Access denied | National Center for Science Education

Good Academic Freedom Bills: MT, AZ, MO, OK

​

Following Tennessee's example, Montana's HB 183 would free K-12 public school science teachers from fear of administrative reprisal to teach objectively both sides of scientific controversies as such matters arise during the normal course of curricular instruction. Wait. What? What does that mean? How about an example.

​

Helena, MT, is considering, say, whether to protect at law, for the sake of advanced critical thinking instruction, a lesson plan on the biology unit on mutation and selection that involves questions (but no force-fed answers!) like those raised here. Teacher-led memorization by students of the statements in the textbook is a banal, unexciting and ultimately ineffective way to learn. And it is completely protected. What needs protecting, and a bit more press, is a less deferential approach to the textbook writers: open inquiry. That's the policy end that academic freedom law serves.

​

State of the Union: An Academic Freedom Bill Roundup | Evolution News

Creationists are not pushing laws around the country that would help science. Quite the opposite.

More likely you want people to ignore the scientific method and accept, uncritically, your own particular brand of woo.Sorry, try elsewhere.