Science in Public Schools

Having read through some of the articles in these forums, I have noticed strong evidences which seem to support creation, global flood, young earth, etc. As long as such evidences are religion free (no Bible, no God, etc.), should they be admitted and taught in Public School Science Curricula?

PERCY WROTE:
It would be easier to answer your question if you could provide some examples of the evidences you mean.[Jbthree] There's all kinds of evidences that don't support such things as biological evolution and an ancient earth. To start with, students could be taught that evolution is still a theory, not a fact. The fossil record supports this because it fails to provide the inbetween fossils that support the idea that life forms gradually evolved from one major specie to another. Students should be taught that gradualism theory is no longer accepted as the primary mechanism for evolution. For example the jury is still out on human evolution. There are only presumed links and there is no consensus even among evolutionists. If there are no links between man and his ancestors, the student is free to conclude that man appeared suddenly on earth.Another example: The jury is out on horse evolution. Yet, you go into museums where there are impressive displays showing them evolving from a fox-like creature. Niles Eldredge admitted that such displays are "regrettable." The truth about horse evolution is out there, but public school science teachers seem to be content just to go with the flow.Students should be challenged to consider if life forms appear on earth abruptly and formed with purpose and intelligence.There are so many other examples which students could be challenged with to research and see what they come up with.From the fossil record, you could go to more complex things like pleochroic halos which basically support a rapidly forming earth. This information is not taught to students and it should be.Let students hear all the data and make up their own minds instead of being told that evolution, or a multi-billion year old earth, are proven facts.

BRENNAKIMI WROTE:
How can you have creation without god? you can't teach that. and you can't say that it's a generalized creation because other religions' creation stories are completely different (and no, i'm not referring to the big three). Soif you can't teach that marduk squished man out of clay in science class, then you can't teach that some 'nameless' but christian based god did it either.I propose the following evolutionists to be quoted in the introduction section of all Public School Science Curriculums that deal with the origins of life and evolution back in the Cambrian and Precambrian stages. Students can make up their own minds as to whether they believe a Creator (God) made all life forms, or if the evidence supporting evolution has yet to be found in the Cambrian and Precambrian.One of the major unsloved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-cellular marine vertebrates in lower cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age. (D. Axelrod, Science 128:7, 1958)The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229)It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another. (Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd Edition, 1986, p.325)If any event in life’s history resembles man’s creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multi-cellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukariotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants. (Stefan Bengston, Nature, 345:765, 1990)The complex of historical events encompassing the origin and early evolution of Metazoa is at once the salient feature and the most unresolved bio-historical phenomenon in the history of life. It has been the single most perplexing issue since paleontology emerged as a scientific discipline in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (J.H. Lipps/P.W. Signor, Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa, 1992, pp.3-23).Then there was something of an explosion. Beginning about 600 million years ago and continuing for about 10 to 15 million , the earliest known representatives of the major kinds of animals still populating today’s seas made a rather abrupt appearance. (Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Skeptic looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 44)Would you object to these quotes being included in the Public School Science Curriculum. Thanks

NOSYNED SAID:
I would in fact welcome these quotes being included in a public high school curriculum. They would be included with their full context. They would have any up to date information supplied.[Jbthree] This is all I was interested in finding out. It is good that you would have no problem with quotes such as these being included in Science Curriculums. But are they? I doubt it. If the framers of Public Education are serious about truth in education, they would include authoritative statements like these to offset the claims of fact. For example, I live in Broward County Florida. Back in 1986, a Science Specialist was quoted as saying evolution is a fact. Her statement did not go unnoticed and many responded to her claim for support. Members of the Board of Education were challenged to back up her claim. No responses were ever received.
You are just as aware as I of the many evolutionists who have abandoned gradualism in favor of other theories (i.e. Punctulated Equilibria, Directed Pan Spermia, etc.)The framers of PE have broad latitude as to what can be taught. I would think that the earliest life forms would be of great interest. If the Cambrian "explodes" with complex, mutli-cellular marine life, then the precambrian should contain billions of slightly less complex life forms. They are no where to be found.Thanks for your thoughts on this.JB

PAULK WROTE:
I would certainly object to those quotes being included without more up-to-date information and commentary explaining our current state of knowledge. We do know that ancestral forms did exist even if they are largely missing from the fossil record. We know because we have genetic and morphological evidence plus a few fossils (and more are being discovered).
And since a text book will be used for a number of years any section on this material must state that research is continuing and that further progress is expected.[JB] The precambrian, like the cambrian, should "explode" with billions, perhaps trillions, of all the ancestry life forms to the cambrian. Where are they? Were they "raptured?" :-)Since I recently posted on the issue in another thread I suggest you read that for more information (and an important link):[JB] Not much there that explains the missing precams.Stay blessed,
JB