I went to a Jesuit High School, and we learned Creationism in Theology, Evolution in Science (neither taught as absolute truth), and both in Philosophy.

610705[/snapback]

That sounds like the best approach.

I agree that it shouldn't be taught as science ... i think it should be mentioned as a lead in to evolution

 

the same way that the biblically true and scientifically false geocentric model is introduced often as a lead in to the current known solar system (helio centric model)

 

It is important to mention past theories, discredited or not, as a lead into the modern accepted theory

 

With one as touchy as this make mention that there are some theological ties and in the end it's up to you to decide what to believe

 

Also you can mention that in some scientific circles evolutions doesn't negate creationism (as previously mentioned) ... there could be a creator who got the ball rolling and created forms that would evolve

 

You can still have creationism without 'God created man, God created woman, man and women beget x, who beget y&z, etc .....'

The point you completely miss is that creationism is not science and therefore should not be taught as such in a SCIENCE classroom.

I can agree with that to a degree ... and i'm not advocating teaching it ... you're not spending two weeks, creating an expirement, discussing the major inventors and writing a report on it

 

but as a lead in you can appease some people and show a belief that was believed for a huge section of our history

 

a lot of early "science" really wasn't science at all .. but it was accepted as such and is relevent in a science class only to the point that it was accepted and then this theory became more accepted

 

In my school we actually touched on creationism more in our history classes, Scopes Monkey Trial, etc ... but in the right circumstance I wouldn't mind it being mentioned in a science environment with the right surrounding context

 

I don't think it should be taught though