Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

It is clear from your comments that you would support the introduction of creationist teachings into public schools. Would it be correct, however, to say that you would only support the Christian origin myth? Why not the Hindu, or Roman origin myths? Is the Christian origin myth supported by a greater body of evidence than the others?I'm concerned that you seem unable to grasp the difference between evidentially-based material and faith-based material. I think it is safe to assume that you would not want your children being taught the Hindu origin myth as though it was on all-fours with the Christian origin myth. Please correct me if I am wrong.What I'd like to understand better is this: If you seriously believe that this specific origin myth (Genesis) deserves equal time in the classroom with evidentially-based material, surely you must accept that, in the spirit of fairness, the many other faith-based origin myths (which many millions of people presently adhere to) should also be included?If you work through this chain of logic, surely you can see why the Christian origin myth does NOT belong in the science classroom. Put simply, if it deserves time there, then so do multitudes of other unsupported assertions, leading to a colossal waste of time that would be better spent on the examination of tangible, evidentially supported material.

Hi RAZD A VERY important distinction that Robert Byers does not seem to make. His arguments (if you can call them that) seem to indicate that he believes the law is prohibiting teachers from teaching the "truth" about our biological origins. Unfortunately I think he misses the point that his "truth" is neither established by evidence, nor shared by the rest of us.As for the class you propose, I'd love to attend! "Social studies" is what we called it when I was in school. No idea what it would be called today (humanities I guess), just hopefully NOT "science".PS I would have added interest in the native American myths as my mother's great great great great great grandmother (give or take a great) was a Choctaw squaw. Of course - I'd still consider them colourful tales of fancy and not literal truths Edited by Briterican, : Said Havoc rather than Robert Byers, apologies Havoc. Edited.

I'm not engaged in any such effort to reach "the other side"... I asked you a simple question, which you dodged.Would you support the teaching of the Islamic or Hindu origin myth in science class alongside the Christian one that you have overtly said you would support?I really would like to hear your answer to this, I'm not harassing you or trying to set you up... I'd honestly like to hear your answer.

Sorry, still a dodge. I asked YOU if YOU would be happy with the Hindu or Islamic origin myth being taught in science class, as if it were on equal footing with the Christian origin myth, a question you still haven't answered.As for this notion that the people should decide through the legislature, what happens when "the people" that get to decide this for the school your son goes to turn out to be predominantly Muslim and they opt for the Islamic origin myth to be IN science class, and the Christian one out?Your position is failing miserably in this thread (even with the creationists), and your post count continues to rise whilst your "helpful input" quotient continues to drop.Edited by Briterican, : Attack the position, not the poster.