It's never too early to begin teaching children the skills of critical thinking....
Young children can be mercilessly critical thinkers.
Ask any parent.
I'm not a parent; at San Francisco Sex Information I answered the calls of many hundreds of kids.
Actually, there is an argument for teaching it. Along with astrology, alchemy, witchcraft, worship of Zeus, Thor, and beliefs in leprechauns and flying unicorns. The class could be labeled as "Superstitions, Mythologies, and the Danger of Non-Critical Thinking."
The best example of the ignorance and hypocrisy of ID/Creationism is the NOVA Special (Judgement Day, Intelligent Design on Trial). I would like it to be part of the science curriculum in every public school. Link below if you haven't seen it.
The bad news of it all, is that, Creationism is even now being taught in thousands of schools across America, on taxpayer money, your money. I posted an earlier article on it maybe a week or two ago.
Love your idea to teach it, dismantle, & throw in trash heap.
I thought my idea of teaching "unintelligeble de-sign" in the classroom would work if you did it the same way they did prayer. Obviously you cannot have kids "pray" in every cultures holy book custom in school, so prayer is out. Do creationism the same way. Use every cultures ideas of creationism as a "mention" and then get right into evolution. You simply cannot have "god did it-allah did it-krisna did it, etc." and believe any of this shit as science. It just isn't going to happen, so wake up and get used to it, OK. The problem here is that lawmakers catter to some of these nutjobs, possibly because the lawmakers are nutjobs themselves! This part is very scarey.
Believing that you have the history of mankind written in ancient books that god wrote through men is rediculous. Believing again that this book covers all of mankinds history past, present, and future is absurd. One problem with the theists is that they don't want to admit that they do not know something. Another problem with them is that they want authority and they claim to have all the answers. They don't have enough common sense to realize that their answers do not make sense any longer. God is dead!
"...One problem with the theists is that they don't want to admit that they do not know something..."
That does seem to be the case quite often. God botherers seem to have a low tolerance for ambiguity, and crave for everything to be defined in absolutes. You see this in their dismissal of settled science as "only a theory", blithely misusing the term. News flash: Absolutes (probably) don't exist in nature!
What's even worse about the "know nothing" issue is that once confronted with the error of their supposition, rather than admit to it and let it go, they hang on to it with even more tenacity. Fact is, they really don't want to learn anything that threatens their faith; they've become that dependent on it.
Yes -- the confluence of uncomfortable cognitive dissonance and comforting confirmation bias. This is why so many discussions of religion or politics become unpleasant.
I have just posted an argument for evolution being intelligent that is non-creationist.
I think evolutionists are unwise to deny what is obvious to the man in the street, that life is intelligently-designed. Evolutionists may find tricky ways to say, "yes it looks intelligently designed but it isn't really, that's just an illusion." But why insult people by saying they can't tell reality from illusion, as you can? Why make trouble for yourself? Instead embrace a second theory of evolution, so one of your theories is monist and strictly physicalist, and the other is dualist and does allow for intelligent design. Then you can say, "our theories include accounts of what makes life seem intelligently designed." End of problem. And a huge hit to the creationists who trade on the inability of the modern synthesis to account for the man-in-the-street experience of consciousness, creativity and free will.
The sidebar article linked to on the contents page above challenges modern evolutionary theory for its assumption that evolution can be understood by treating how living creatures differ and genetic information as if they came as atoms you could treat statistically. I think this assumption is unjustified, which cuts to the heart of the modern synthesis.
I think what evolutionists should stress is that living creatures, including us, evolved. But I think they should be agnostic about the mechanism. Any opinions?
I'll have to check into your ideas further, but you could be onto something. I've always said that there is no need for failed prototypes of animals and humans as evolution goes along. Some sort fo "smart gene " here prevents half formed or misformed carcasses form being found in fossil records, and it also prevents non effective sperm from being all over the place. This means that you may not ever be finding your "missing link."
Some say the second law of thermodynamics kills evolution in its tracks. I disagree. The Earth is not a sealed system. In other posts of mine, I have said that people in 1950 are not like us, and you can see this. Certainly people in 1800 were not like us. This is visibly discerned, but some reading my posts think I am talking about better dental care or better hygene, etc.
Call it what you like. The improved conditions (or otherwise changed conditions) are affecting human beings and everything else on the planet!