dslatch said:
The child will be informed if they have been taught, and are free to choose which one makes more sense to them.
"And you're wrong. Evolution is a fact." to answer that, well simply enough I think I was having two or three thoughts at once and didn't proofread. Simple answer - Miss type.
To teach the scientific method actually. Think about it, showing a flaw can show one what not to do. also keeps everybody happy.
...That's a
terrible method, and one that's completely at odds with the rest of the curriculum. What's more, it's a method that enforces a false equivalency in the students minds, giving undue weight to creationism. It's like letting a student choose whether to treat Pi (As in: Pi's EXACT value) as 3.14159265359... or exactly 3. One is supported by mathematics, the other is not, and the latter has no place being taught in the same class, much less in a sense where the student gets to decide which route to follow. Alternatively, it's like allowing a student to choose between atomic theory and the classical elements. Or [in a world religion class] Satanism as it exists in the world or as it exists in Hollywood. Look at any other course, you aren't likely to see the 'Let the student decide' route you're suggesting here (which in and of itself should set off more than a few alarm bells about the suggestion of applying it in Biology). Indeed, such an approach has a strong chance of hobbling students in later education and livelihood, as both assume a solid understanding of the more basic concepts.
Education does not mold itself to a student's preferred beliefs, it is not determined by popular vote, it is reflective of what we know of the world. And with regards to Biology, what we know is that Evolutionary Theory is comprehensive enough and accurate enough to effectively tie all of the Biological Sciences together, and - despite creationist claims to the contrary - Creationism has
no real standing in the field. Literally, in the US (which has an atypically high number of creationists) only around 0.15% of relevant experts hold Creationism in any kind of esteem, and most of those flat out admit that is based on personal faith rather than data. The data literally is that lopsided against it, and the idea of teaching it in the classroom actually circumvents the official method of requiring strong evidence and expert approval before teaching, spitting in the face of its own claim of 'fairness' by granting creationism a free pass where every other subject and idea needed to work hard to achieve.
Creationism is not in any way, shape or form scientific (indeed, by invoking the supernatural as an explanation it fails the most basic criteria). It is a political movement based in religion and thus has no more place in a Science classroom than
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does in History or
The Da Vinci Code does in Religion.
On top of that, it certainly doesn't help that the "teach both" route is itself a creationist reaction to the ruling of Epperson v. Arkansas, as noted in the case of
Edwards v. Aguillard, which found the motion unconstitutional.