"To take a giant leap from this one discovery, I think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in our schools."
JC, I'd have to fight that one. Had you said "intelligent design", I'd be more open to it - assuming what was being taught had some kind of theoretical basis that made some sense. But to suggest that a story about God plopping a naked man down in a garden, taking his rib to make a naked woman companion, and then kicking them out into the world, where they must wear clothes, for eating an apple should be taught "along side" the science of evolution is just ridiculous.
Why do people insist on taking a good story, a parable intended to teach a lesson, and treating it as some kind of literal, factual history of human creation?
Now, if you want to introduce a "comparative religions" or "history of philosophy" requirement in our high schools, I actually think that would be a good idea, but creationism might then amount to half a period's lecture/discussion.
Finally, since, AFAIK, no one has really come up with truly scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, that really belongs in the philosophy curriculum, too, not "along side" scientific theories.
JMO, of course. |
