Check out this Space.com article on poor scientific literacy in the United States. It is an older article, but my blog is relatively new. "The study found that science literacy has improved only slightly since the previous survey and that 70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process."

I find these results truly sad. I wish all people would be as enthused as am I by the sciences. The education system in this country is poor. We don't hire teachers based on their scientific beliefs as we should. Can you imagine a science teacher who believes in creationism? A co-worker of mine has told me his science teacher once laughed at him when he said he thought evolution was more likely. There are still states in this nation which on are the edge of teaching creationism in schools! We have so many answers in front of our faces, yet we ignore them. I fear the future will see the 20th and 21st centuries as a naive and cult-driven time.

- Addition as of 05/08/2003 -
To clarify one issue, as this seemed to have raised the hackles on some of you, and gotten us off-topic. The form of Creationism which I am calling unfit for education is the fundamental definition of creationism. Creationism in terms of the earth being 5 thousand years old, and being created in 168 hours. Merriam-Webster describes it as "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis." . If you believe that God has created everything through scientific means such as evolution, then your beliefs are not fundamental creationism, and I am not bashing it.

Astrology is the sheerest hokum. This pseudoscience has been around since
the day of the Chaldeans and Babylonians. It is as phony as numerology,
phrenology, palmistry, alchemy, the reading of tea leaves, and the practice
of divination by the entrails of a goat. No serious person will buy the
notion that our lives are influenced individually by the movement of
distant planets. This is the sawdust blarney of the carnival midway.
-- James J. Kilpatrick, Universal Press Syndicate

Nope.

Check out talk.origins. I think that's pretty much the norm for creationists.

Who is that? Jon? That one has got to be a joke.

U CANT FIGHT CREATIONISM AND U NEVER WILL DEFEAT IT BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS A STUPID FREAK THEORY THAT WAS INVENTED BY SOME RACIST PSYCH!

Your are not the only one.

The problem I have with creationism is by definition, it is an exercise in interpretation, faith, guesswork, or whatever term sits well. Belief is a malleable force, it can be pried and bent to fit the evidence at hand, but to what end?

God created the Earth as it is? I absolutely deny this – as a willful, conscious act. Why would God create a speck of sand, when great Universes form without any intervention other than the forces guided by the laws of physics?

Now, that He created the laws themselves, I can see an argument for. I rather doubt most theists would agree, as it reduces the importance of Man to nothing whatever, and shifts the value to sentience itself – ergo making other animals just as important as we are. Why? Because they are governed by the same laws we are, that every atom in existence is in “Gods image”, and that every scripture we have ever scribbled is an utter farce.

That is a brand of creationism that makes a bit of sense. But without nirvanas, angels, messiahs, sins and pagans – it just isn’t creationism to the mob.

I'm glad you got more specific and I concur. As I've said I wish those who want creationism to be taught in schools would at the very least lean more towards the non-fundamental, and more scientific version that you believe. I invite anyone else who reads this to lend their thoughts.

I see your point, but if creationism reffers to God creating the world as we know it, then yes I do believe in creationism. don't group me with fundamentalist freaks. Jerry Falwell is to Christianity what Osama bin Laden is to Islam. not every Christian is as basic and stupid as we're portrayed on those 3 digit cable channels. and it's not like my idea is new or my own. I borrowed from the most devout Christian I've ever met, as well as a succesfull biologist, our mother. also, the idea of melding science with faith is OLD. read The Great Synthesis by Thomas Aquinas.

In response to Scott, there's nothing wrong with teaching opposing plausible theories. The thing I'm saying is that creationism in its strict definition is not plausible. If the church would relax its definition, to something that integrates important things like fact and evidence, I would have no major issues with it being taught in schools.

Logic has nothing to do with religion, religion can be logical, but it does not have to be since it isnt bound to empirical reality.

And whats wrong about teaching creationism in school? Should students not be exposed to other ideas? Or would it threaten the culture of darwinism to introduce ideas to the contrary?

To your first paragraph I must say Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate, or plurality should not be posited without necessity. To introduce an element that is not necessary to the explanation is to stray from logic. I believe that also falls victim to the ad hoc hypothesis when you mention Satan putting evidence on Earth.

To the rest of what you say I agree. I simply picked creationism out of the rest of the poor aspects of the USA's scientific diversity and accuracy because I knew it would inspire response.

I do understand what you say about Darwinism taking on its own mythology. I don't hold evolution as a belief, but on the contrary, to teach it is not wrong. Teaching creationism as a plausible answer is very much wrong.

I am, of course, speaking about creationism in terms of strict definition of such. My brother believes in a mix between evolution and creationism. For instance, the 7 days were actually 7 epoch, and God never said how he would be creating, and he did so through science. If the church would promote that form of creationism that would be wonderful. It can still be picked apart using Ockham's razor, but it is far better than the tripe they normally teach on the subject.

"Creationism has been disproved by showing the age of the earth..."

Creationism can not be dismissed by empirical means, because it is a non-empirical system. For every empirical argument against Creationism, a non-empirical counter-argument can be made. For instance, your argument could be countered by proposing that the earth is only five thousand years old, and that any evidence to the contrary was placed there by Satan. That is an oversimplification, but it serves to illustrate my point that science and religion play by different rules, and you cant refute one by using the rules of the other system.

While Darwinism started out as a sincere theory, it has evolved into its own mythology. Many Scientists and Academics that I have known have been fanatic about this theory. Point out their fanaticism and you will get a response somewhat like “but you can not refute the evidence, its everywhere...” Its akin to a calling out a religious fanatic and you get a response of “john 3:16 blah blah blah” A scientist should be interested in restating his objectivity, and should be considerate of other possibilities, including non-empirical ones at all times.

If the scientific community is complaining about poor “science literacy” they should be looking for the causes within their population. Mainly, they aren’t teaching real science.

When I took my genetics and evolution class for my bio minor, it was taught by a very conservative and Christian professor. I have to say he was the most objective professor I ever had. Never once did he bring his personal belief into the classroom. I only know his beliefs because of my personal dialogue with him. Of course he always reminded the class that what he was teaching (Evolution) was not the only valid explanation. He also taught in such a way that students who believed in creationism did not feel threatened. That can’t be said for other professors who would bash creationism…

And just so you know, I am not a creationist. I am a relativist, which is to say I believe that reality I shaped by will, or belief. Science and religion are simply tools of will.

Creationism has been disproved by showing the age of the earth, and the age of humans. I'm not saying it is foolish. I'm saying you can believe what you want, but to spread your mythological beliefs to others and call it education is evil.

Ok, to dismiss evolution for creationism is wrong, but it sounds as if you think it should be one or the other, or that one is foolish for believing in creationism. Is that correct?