I'm not familiar enough with the Bible to be able to say anything about the possible differences in time scale, but it does make inherent sense.

If nothing else, I think the professor's comment alleviated some stress that some of the students had.

My friend the high school biology teacher had a very different approach. He was required to teach evolution (in which he also believed), but our student population was fairly religious. He'd just explain that they didn't have to believe in it; they only had to learn it. That took some pressure off the students as well.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I appreciate that your high school teacher showed respect to the students' right to believe something contrary to what he taught....sounds like he must have been an awesome teacher.
I've no problem with evolution being taught in high school or even junior high because by then, students with religious upbringing are old enough to understand there's a difference between science and religion and that neither their pastor nor the teacher are "lying". I wouldn't want it taught to elementary school students though because I think it would be rather confusing and how could a teacher respond to little Jimmy's comment of "That's not what my preacher said"?????

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I would rather my children go to a religious school than to a public school that was teaching religion.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

Of course people who believe god created everything can lead "very successful lives" I just don't see what that has to do with what we're talking about. And people are not "freaking out over the mere mention of it". People are upset about the attempt to insert the fantasy that there is a scientific controversy about the theory of evolution or that creationism is a rational alternate explanation into the state science standards.

I would certainly object to that statement coming from a science teacher. If a science teacher thinks it necessary to point out that some people think their religion forbids them from believing established scientific evidence in all fields then I guess there is nothing wrong with that. I just can't imagine a circumstance that would make it necessary or beneficial for a science standard to address that issue.
And make no mistake about it. A denial of virtually all science is what this movement is really about. Evolution is the current target because it is the branch of science which most obviously conflicts with the literal interpretation of genesis. But as the inventors of "intelligent design" have made clear, they dispute physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology as well. They seek "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism [modern science] and its cultural legacies" (bracketed text mine) according to the document called "the wedge strategy" produced by ID's lead organization the discovery institute.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

Is the purpose of an education to create successful people or to inform children (or adults) about reality and teach them to think critically?

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

So you would have a problem with what Pram's teacher friend tells his students? What does it hurt to point out that not everyone accepts evolution as it's presented by science? Do you honestly believe that someone would change their mind and start believing in creationism just because a teacher mentioned it????

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I believe if his teacher friend feels obligated to say anything on the subject he should point out that nobody is obligated to believe in any science at all. I think singling out evolution for special treatment is the wedge adopted by the ID people and it is a mistake to allow them to frame the issue on their terms. The teacher's statement, if applied only to evolution, gives the false impression that evolution can be removed without profound consequences for all of biology. It implies that other branches of science do not pose the very same issues for people of faith that evolution does. I don't think it is beneficial to promote ignorance in the public school.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

An interesting point. However, given the community's strong resistance to evolution, and their lack of commitment to education, I think it was the best compromise that he could make.

We're talking about a school where the majority of students skipped at least 10 days per semester, and the parents were nowhere to be found. Scaring them out of the classroom would have benefited nobody.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

OK, creationism is a valid subject in a school curriculum, when teaching about the history of scientific theories. You just can't start off with the theory of evolution, and then move on to Darwin and the Theory of natural selection.
You need to explain what people believed, and what was going on at the time, and what new information came to light.
Most people accepted the biblical theory of creation, then people began to plaster the walls of their homes to keep out the cold drafts, and this created a demand for gypsum, and the best gypsum was found in France, near Paris, the world famous "Plaster of Paris". During the quarrying of all this gypsum, all kinds of skeletons were uncovered of creatures that didn't currently exist.
This was when the idea of evolution, that creatures changed over time began to set in.
Now how can you tell that story without explaining that people believed in the creation story of the bible as fact, before these discoveries, and that these discoveries changed peoples thinking. By the time Darwin came along, evolution was accepted by most learned people as fact, people also knew that by selective breeding they could change the characteristics of plants and animals, what Darwin supplied was a theory of the mechanism of evolution, natural selection.

Just like a history of chemistry might start off with the idea that everything was composed of earth, fire, water and air, and from there go into alchemy and from there the experiments that brought us to our current understanding of chemistry.

Without the starting point, the idea that every species had been created exactly as it currently appeared, and then the empirical data that changed the thinking into the idea that species changed over time, and then the mechanism of that change, and then the chemistry of that mechanism, the story is incomplete.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Obviously someone who is on the spot is better able to gauge the situation. But if their commitment to education is still tenuous even with your friend walking on eggshells to pacify them, I don't think I would compromise a principal for such a small benefit.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

Long before the term 'intelligent design' came about, there were conflicts in teaching evolution. That's not going to change because too many on both sides are close-minded. Just as you can't accept that there is a God that may have created everything including the evolutionary process, there are many that can't accept that God didn't create the heavens and the earth. Of those two groups, neither will budge. Calling either side ignorant though accomplishes nothing but more hostility.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

One is based in evidence, which is why it is the only one that should be taught in school.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

I think the purpose of American public education would be the former. Critical thinking doesn't put money in the SS fund

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I don't believe I said anything to suggest I "can't accept that there is a God that may have created everything including the evolutionary process". I object to teaching religion as science in the public school. That objection has nothing at all to do with my religious faith since it is a completely civil and secular question.

When I said I don't see any benefit to promoting ignorance I was referring to my previous sentences:
"The teacher's statement, if applied only to evolution, gives the false impression that evolution can be removed without profound consequences for all of biology. It implies that other branches of science do not pose the very same issues for people of faith that evolution does."
Teaching that "evolution can be removed without profound consequences for all of biology" and that "other branches of science do not pose the very same issues for people of faith that evolution does" is the promotion of ignorance I was talking about. I couldn't care less if people feel obligated by their religious faith to tell their children they are not allowed to believe in science. I just object to misrepresentation of scientific issues by teachers.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

What both sides? The side of science and the side of religion?

Mrs. M, there is only one side in this issue and that side will try to create a conflict every time something can be conceived to conflict with the faith that defines the side. That was the deal with a round earth as well as with a heliocentric solar system, and it was and still is the deal with biological evolution. There is absolutely no one on the thus conceived opposing side of the thus conceived conflict that is acting as an opponent in such a conflict.

When it comes to creationism (which is actually NOT a claim of divine creation but solely the claim that divine creation is demonstrable and evidential), science can and will be used to refute claims that concern the natural world. It's what science does. It can't, however, argue any claims that concern divinity. That's why, in the first place, it can't form a "side" in any conflict concerning divinity.

It's a one-sided conflict, - a fight with shadows.