On Creationism, Installment (n+1)

"...look at the beauty of this planet, today and through the millions of years that this planet has existed...."

Precisely. But what many creationists are saying is that the evidence that you can see and touch that the earth has existed for millions of years (or billions) is a lie, planted there by a God or a Satan wanting to entrap humankind into false belief. How do you fight that? How can you? It's impossible to argue with someone who denies logic and the evidence of one's senses.

For that matter, what alternative to evolution does a literal reading of the Bible offer? There are two separate creation stories in Genesis, neither of which agrees with the other. Genesis 1:1 through 2:4 versus Genesis 2:5 and following. Two differing accounts of Noah and the flood.

Logically, there would be a big dispute between Genesis 1:1 creationists and Genesis 2:5 creationists: "No, you're wrong, take that!" Bam! Pow! That there is no such rift among creationists is due to poor reading comprehension or nt wanting to comprehend. It is simply amazing how the biblical understanding of fundamentalists is managed and controlled by the few.

On Knowledge, Faith, Argument, Education

As for religion, why should we draw lines and say, "This is a matter of fact, which can be argued with, but this other gets into faith which we ought not to argue with"? Business is supposed to be reality-based, science, the same. Why not religion? Why not faith?

Who was it that said "The unexamined life is not worth living"?

IMO we each ought to question every aspect of our (and other's) beliefs, not just once but periodically, like housecleaning. It ought to be a part of high school curriculum to question everything, values, mores, theories of government, of religion, nothing excepted. In h.s. government class, there needs to be a part where students criticize democracy, capitalism, any established shibboleth. In science, have a segment where students have free rein to criticize any scientific tenet.

I am not saying that classes can be disorderly and anarchic, but that there needs to be a time and place for everything. Some facts can only be learned by rote. Other concepts need to be discovered. Some subjects call for creativity while others don't. Sometimes debate is useful. At present, IMO, schooling blurs the lines, so you have kids responding to a fact question by exercising creativity or giving an opinion; the real purpose of education is to teach kids to know the difference and to clearly distinguish between what they know and what they think they know and what is uncertain or arguable.

It is common to grade a test so that getting 90% of the questions right means getting an "A".  What grade do you give an airline pilot who gets 90% right?  Dead?  Probably. 

And there are so many areas in which our problem is thinking we know when in fact we do not.  True ignorance is not in not knowing, but in not knowing you are wrong.

The most important thing to get out of school is to know what one knows and what one does not know, and to be able to distinguish what is definite and knowable from what is unknown or a matter of opinion.

It is creationists who say that biology classes ought to let students question the validity of evolutionary theory. Well, okay, nothing wrong with questioning. But talk about teaching students to question religion and those creationists get all het up and say that is off limits. Why? Can't take what you try to dish out?