Stump the Christian?

[SteveII]

I think evolution should be studied. However, I do object to the teaching as fact, that all life has evolved from nothing and everything has a common ancestor. I think the science curriculum should stop at describing what the theories are and how they work and not stray into statements best left to other fields (like philosophy and religion).

When we can literally see evolution happening before our eyes, in the lab, I'd kinda like to know what you would consider a fact, if evolution doesn't count. My family breeds dogs: I've seen the line evolve over the years. If something we can witness, record and track doesn't count as factual, what does? 

And while I have not really followed the campaign for creationism in the science classroom, does it really matter? Is this really a disaster as some claim? If you want to discuss other creation stories from other religions, who cares? It might be better for students to understand there are other views.

Are you seriously asking why we wouldn't want students in schools to be taught untrue things? Or at least, let me soften my wording to be accurate, things that have no evidence for them?

Can you give me an example of the anti-science stance of the Christian right? I send my daughter to a very conservative Christian college (Grove City College). They have a stellar reputation in the STEM subjects and graduates are snapped up by Fortune 100 companies 4 weeks before graduation. 

And yet you just betrayed your serious misconceptions about a cornerstone field of modern biology; the christian right's hardline defiance of evolution is the poster boy of anti-science stances, as is their cavalier attitude to manmade climate change, their opposition to medical treatment in favor of prayer (in some cases) and so on. That was just off the top of my head.

Sure, evolution happens. Does it go all the way back to 1 organism? No one knows...and therefore is a theory. I am suggesting that we label fact as fact and theory theory. They both have clear definitions and it shouldn't be too hard to categorize them. Related to that, I do object to the teaching in many/most grade/high school science classroom that life sprang from non-life. There is no evidence of that. 

Regarding teaching students untrue things. I could have been clearer. Teaching that some Christians proposes ABC (Genesis literalist), and such and such religion proposes XYZ is not teaching untrue things. Obviously all the options cannot be true. You can't imagine that these students have not heard of the Bible and instead of ignoring the elephant in the room, I think there is benefit to at least addressing the issue. A good educator should be able to handle...um...educating. Like I mentioned earlier, I think further discussion should be handled in another classroom (philosophy/religion). 

It does not follow that a stance against parts of evolutionary theory = anti-science.