> 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.

They sort of tried this at my school. But, seriously. We can't exactly make students derive all of classical physics from first principles. Teaching "what" to think is every bit as important as teaching "how" to think. Facts are facts. You learn them by rote if you need to know them.

>
> 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!

Can you name one other bit of commonly accepted (by scientists) science that you would want taught this way?

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

A "true proponent" of science doesn't feel the need to. Because s/he realizes that evolution isn't the house of cards you make it out to be, it's actually quite a robust theory on firmer footing than some theories currently being developed in the "harder" (read: more mathematical) sciences like physics.

> 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!)

I'm cool with teaching Christian creationism in humanities classes, much like Stephen suggested. But if we're going to start teaching kids stuff based on opinion polls, we should teach them about ghosts too, since apparently 50% of Americans believe in those. What about sex? I'd say something close to 100% of adult Americans will have sex at some point in their lives. Should we teach kids about that in school? What about the Quran? Current events would certainly seem to indicate that our children should know a little something about the religion of Islam. Should we teach that in school, putting it on equal footing with Christianity? Should we teach where the two differ, and encourage children to make up their own mind between them?

-- Dave