>I don't think that young-earth arguments have the support required to
>justify their inclusion in a science curriculum (I don't think that
>_popular_ support is sufficient reason for inclusion). I'm also not
>sure that YECs will appreciate the way in which the their arguments
>might be presented or discussed. Instead, I think there are examples
>of other competing scientific models for students to investigate which
>are less religious-oriented and less likely to draw heated debate.
Boy, Tim, if this standard were applied to the whole curriculum then
the logical conclusion is that the "theory with the mostest" gets
taught. I thought we left that attitude behind with the Middle Ages. I
see nothing wrong with teaching students about new, emerging theories
and introducing them to the idea that unpopular theories will at times
eventually prevail and that popular ones are often proven false, as in,
per your example... Ptolemy vs. Copernicus
>In physics and astronomy, one could compare the problems of an earth-centered
solar system vs. a heliocentric one.
Why not show students that evidence can often be contradictory
(example: with different dating methods) or that it can contribute to
different conclusions. A discussion on young-earth vs. old-earth claims
could accomplish this. This can still be done from a strictly
scientific perspective.
Paul Durham