Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?

Insert plug for a topic I started a while back:
"What if creationism did get into the science class"
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=4&t=3&p=3As I type this, there are 42 messages at that topic.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

"The greater the percentage of lead present in the sample, the older the rock is. Scientists know that from a million grams of U-238, 1/7, 600 g of Pb-206 per year will be produced by decay. The U-Pb ratio can be used only when all the lead in the rock is known to have come from the decay of uranium. Because U-238 has an extremely long half-life of 4.5 billion years, it is most useful for dating geologic samples more than 10 million years old." -- Modern Earth Science - Holt et al. 1998

---

quote:

---

TC: They give one good sentence which admits an assumption. The problem is, they don't place any emphasis or even expand on how much of a problem this is, or why this is significant in the dating process. The sources of error are also vaguely looked at. If memory serves me well, they in fact use one of the most fallacied methods of all radioisotopic dating, U-Pb as their example. Its many problems including open-system behavior and U mobility renders direct U-Pb dating geologically meaningless and untrusted. The lack in adequate teaching on this method is detrimental to the learning process of students. I can agree with Tranquility that this is quite possibly tantamount to mainstream brainwashing.

---

I don't know the greater context, but you're textbook quote is a simplified view of the U/Pb process. Hopefully, it was presented as such.Now, as I understand it, the U/Pb process is a pretty strong method. It is usually done on zircons, which are quite solid containers of the elements involved.Regardless, detailed study of radiometric dating methods sure seems to be beyond the scope of a high school class. Where I encountered in was in an upper-level college geology course.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I think the evidence is good to excellent and so does Behe ('Darwin's Black Box'), a fellow PhDed molecular biologist. So does God, another fellow molecular biologist (Rom 1:20). He's still an undergraduate last time I saw his title.

---

Since Behe is brought up again, I thought I'd point this out again. It's Kenneth Miller's review of Darwin's Black Box:
http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.htmlQuoting the opening paragraph of that page:

quote:

---

Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, "scientific creationists" should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had "much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us (1)," that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a "common ancestor." In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species.

---

Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe