> > > And I have issue with those who present
> > >evolution as the only "right" way to think. I
> > >see nothing wrong with explaining both views and
> > >allowing children to form their own opinions over
> > >time.
> >
> > The problem is, again, one is science, and one isn't. Teach ID in a class called "Christian Theology" and you're cool. Teach it in "Biology" and I take extreme exception to that.
>
> The other problem is that science isn't something that it makes any sense to "allow... children to form their own opinions" about. Science is not a subjective phenomenon any more than math is.

*Science itself* isn't. Virtually by definition, any conclusion derived through the scientific method is subject to further exploration and revision. If a scientific theory, upheld for hundreds of years, were fundamentally changed by new research, it wouldn't be the first time. And some scientific theories are more solidly grounded than others. Evolution isn't one of them. And none of them are as incontrovertible as 2 + 2 = 4.
Math -- and the scientific method itself, as distinct from scientifically conducted research -- has the important distinction of defining its own concepts as theoretical constructs apart from the truth of the world around us. Math and the scientific method are only worthwhile because we find them useful to describe or discover the world around us. It doesn't mean that any given conclusions obtained through math or the scientific method are accurate and certainly not that they're complete.

(I think this is especially true of theories derived from induction, rather than deduction, but I don't know that I can back that up.)

I think the scientific method should be taught as a process apart from any ties to any conclusions derived that have been derived from it. Many schools supposedly do this, but I went to some great schools that still botched the job.

It is in that context only I support the teaching of evolution in schools -- not as mathematical fact, but as a scientific theory, in the strictest sense of the term. With a solid understanding of the scientific method, kids will understand how to put the theory of evolution in the proper perspective, and, YES YES YES, make their own decisions about it!

I don't believe a true proponent of science would feel threatened by the teaching of evolution in this context.

I also think Christian creationism should also be taught in American schools. It shouldn't be taught as science, because it isn't (although it is consistent with science in that the two coexist without conflict), but it should be taught. Why? Same reason for anybody to learn evolution, though most will never use it in the real world except to debate it on web site forums! We live in a country where 80ish% of the population believes in the Christian God, and a smaller but still substantial percentage of the population believes in creationism. If an education in America is to prepare kids to be knowledgeable and versatile and competent in the world they will soon inhabit as adults, it needs to inform them about the ideas and concepts prevalent in that world! That's what an education *is*. (I also think kids should learn about other cultures and religions, but the absurd counterargument to teaching any of it is that it's not practical to teach *all* of it. So what? You don't refrain from teaching American History because it's not practical to also teach the history of every single other nation in the world!)

Let me hit the same conclusions from a different perspective. Too many treat education as telling kids *what* to think instead of *how* to think. There is a huge movement, with creationists and evolutionists, to indoctrinate our children instead of giving them the tools and the inspiration to become competent thinkers.

Math teaches *how* to think. Great. The scientific method teaches *how* to think. Great. But teaching evolution or creationism as fact is teaching *what* to think. No. Educate kids about what these ideas are, how they came about, who believes them, and why.

And let them draw their own conclusions.