Hi,
yesterday I wrote kind of prologue to those series about science and creationism. I talked about looking on the other side and not just staying on your opinion. Now as I promised this post will be about the learning of creationism in schools. I also noticed that you guys actually commented on my post which I am very happy about, so thanks again!
It has already been few months but after having the discussion about creationism I remembered it again. In our biology class in autumn we were starting to learn about the life on Earth.
My teacher said that there is an evolution and there are also other version about how it happened, creationism for example. But she said that she wont be learning us about creationism and will left us with the knowledge about evolution (we learned just few basic stuff anyway).
Now when I think about it, this sounds to me kind of unfortunate[1]. Why? Because those people who wont happen to think about it in soon future will at some point get the information, but from what source? Will it be objective (not saying that teachers are always objective, but they should be)? Plus, creationism is such an important thing from the matter that so many people believe in it and in past 99% of people thought it to be true, so how should the class look like?
I think that the teacher should explain on what creationism stands. Seven day creation, how Earth is only 6,000 years old and the Great flood. Then she/he should let the students think about this. I think that on this you can so well show how argumentation work, for example student just can not say that he thinks that seven day creation is stupid. This could learn them a bit of critical thinking and argumentation, though there is one problem.
What if in the class were some people who actually belived in creation? I mean they were surely learned by their parents about creation. Of course it would be in their greatest “benefit” to tell them about evolution and why some things are simply made up about creation, but if I think about how groups of people think in classes maybe it would be kind of like showing all the other students who were taught about the “scientific way” that those two or three students are stupid. This seems to me how it could end and there would be no benefit in it at all, I can imagine how those kids could be kind of stressed if they should trust in evolution or creationism.
What to do with it? Well you could probably pretty much eliminate the problem if you would teach it in higher classes for older students when they are more self-confident and so on, but I do not have the right experience with teaching to really tell how it would end up, still I think that it is important to learn about creationism because then later when those people who did not ever bumped into such thing could easily “convert” to creationism, and as Mike M. quoted Bill Nye, it is not beneficial for the perspective of humanity to have people believing creationism because “nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate” (Thanks Mike.) And trust me, if you do not know anything about the facts that creationists are using it is extremely persuasive. And yes, large percentage of population, even adults just do not know about those things as far as I know [2]. This is because it was seemingly never important to them, this leads to distrust to science and people not supporting it. Take NASA for example, just because of landing on Moon, one of the most amazing achievments of humanity, it is by part of USA population hated, just because there appeared a group of people, who were able to create arguments, which are easy to understand, but they are not true at all. Those are for example flag flapping in the breeze or blast crater under module and so on, this is practicly the same case.
Thanks for reading, next time on those series I will probably “touch” God a little.
Dragallur
[1]Of course there is limited time in class so learning about creationism would take probably two classes, maybe three depending on the teacher.
[2]I must admit here that I do not have representative sample to tell such a thing but when I see my fellow classmates I am sure that they do not care about science at all. Plus I just found out about some people who think that Earth is flat, so thats it 😀 .
in the image next to the “
not good one, that is obvious since Armstrong steps out of the picture while it is taken.
picture relates and it is showing lander with circle on the place where should be blast crater.
does not need it! It just stays in very steep shapes! This is called angle of repose. Things that have higher friction are able to have higher angle of repose. Also this is changed by gravity.
the objects and the 
birds view you would clearly see that those shadows are parallel but from ground and on picture it seems as the shadows head into different directions, so if you dont believe that the Earth is hoaxed you should be convinced. If not you can try it for yourself. Plus if there is some downhill it can be distorted even more.
NASA was too lazy and they used same background twice.
meters below me, but bottom of Black Canyon can be almost 700 meters (on the picture you can see the tallest cliff in Colorado, it was taken from wikipedia, thanks).
radiation belts.
dangerous and inner belt where is much more charged particles and especially protons.
are no stars visible on the photos. This would mean that those pictures are faked because NASA was not able to count where would those stars be from the Moon and rather decided to erase them completely.
found video by mythbusters where they show 
kidding me? What is this ****?
Science and rationality 