From "Things Creationists Hate"
www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm
"Balanced Treatment"
A recent creationist plea is for "balanced treatment" in the classroom: "Let
us present creationism along with evolution, so students can make an
informed choice. That's only fair isn't it?" (The spirit of fairness doesn't
seem to prompt them to invite biologists to present a "balanced treatment"
of evolution at revival meetings, though.)
OK, let's go along with it. In 9th grade biology let's do evolution on the
first day of the school year--then we'll proceed to "alternative theories of
origins" and "intelligent design theories." Tuesday we'll cover the
Algonquin creation myth, Wednesday the Shinto, Thursday the Yoruba,
Friday--Mayan. Next week it's Pawnee, Inuit, Mogollon, Hindu, and
Zoroastrian. We'll get to the Hebrew adaptation of the Babylonian (as
recorded in Genesis) the third Thursday in May (if we don't have a fire
drill).
One of the Big Lies of creationism is that there are only two alternatives,
and that by "defeating evolutionism" (sic), the only possible remaining
alternative is the Genesis myth. (Those of us who have Seen the Truth know
that the TRUE creation account is that preserved since the Beginning by the
!kung bushmen of South Africa.)
From a contributor: I think they should teach creationism in school. Time is
equal to evidence. Thus on the first day, the teacher stands up and says,
creationism is an alternative to evolution. Creationism has not a single
piece of verifiable evidence to support its claims. Now on to evolution. Who
will teach creationism? Since almost all science teachers don't believe
creationism is valid [alas, too many do--largely because few are actually
scientists {one of the failings of American education}rjr], are we going to
require that each school now hire, in addition to the current science
teachers, a fundamentalist Christian to teach science classes? Where would
these fundamentalists get their education? Bob Jones University? I'm sure
the Jim Bakker school of religious economics must have had a science
department!
.
|
