Mentioning it (and the entire controversy) I think makes great sense. It actually reinforces the whole concept of the scientific method, and shows how things are always being tested and revised.
Teaching it as an equal, alternate scientific theory does not make as much sense to me. I would disagree with some others, here, in that I think a class on comparative religion should be mandatory in high school. Compare, contrast, and question. Don't teach any particular view is right, just WHAT those views are. This would make the entire population a little brighter, a little more tolerant, and a little less clueless outside their own living room. A class on societies and customs, and a little frank talk about stereotypes and prejudice, would also be a wonderful thing. On 8/23/06, Rick Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jerry Johnson wrote: > > > > It is not science. How much simpler could that thought be? > > I do agree that creationism is *NOT* science. > > I do NOT have a problem with science teachers mentioning creationism as > an alternative theory, which students could easily learn about in a > humanities class. As long as they don't focus on Christian creationism. > > I assume that other religions have their own creation stories but > honestly, I don't know. How do the followers of Islam feel about the > beginning of the world? What about the Buddhists, and Shintoists? > > (the only reason I mention "shintoist" is because I heard it in a south > park christmas song) > > Rick > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:214079 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
