Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

At one time, it was more important to teach emotional intelligence then science. Actually, if you look at the old-school Greek teaching methods, you will see that logic and philosophy were compulsory for a good education, mathematics was more heavily emphasized and respected, public debate was how professional scholars built their reputations and how bright young students proved themselves. It wasn't all one or the other.My complaint is that modern education isn't vary well focused on developing clear thought. Emotions are great and natural for what they are, but they cloud rational judgement and allow us to be manipulated by smooth talkers who ramp up the pathos and ignore the logos. Having debated with a wide variety of people and silently observing "average folk" in the real world, I am frankly disgusted by the counter-intellectual culture being promoted and implicitly championed in our culture.  They claim they don't have a stance, but once you are in, their stance is very clear. If you cannot validate it, its not real. First, there is a difference between science itself and the scientific community. What a scientist believes personally is not of much concern to me. But if they use their scientific practice to push their personal agendas, then the are stepping beyond the bounds of science. I would argue that a truly good scientist, and the majority of the working scientific community can leave their own biases at the door when they put on their lab coats. Science is like politics, it is funded by people with an agenda. They will not take a stance on God because they know they cannot hold it, but God doesn't serve the political agenda. The idea that there is some great intelligence out there that has our best interests at heart would divert precious attention away from their power and influence.No, it would subvert the scientific method itself. God is both supernatural and unfalsifiable, so there are two reasons why the concept cannot be a part of hypothesis formation process. If we bent this rule for God, we would have to bend it for any number of supernatural and/or unfalsifiable entities or processes and potentially move away from a naturalistic cause without even looking for it. If we made that a common practice, science would lose its ability to be objective and accurate. As far as politics and funding, sure, that is unavoidable. But the scientific methods also mitigates that as much as it can due to peer review. The reviewers are independent of the main group, they aren't affected by the funding issues (at least they aren't ALL affected by them) and often may be initially hostile towards the concept. But their job is to look at it objectively and rationally, and their very reputation within the scientific community depends on it. If a premise is submitted to this kind of scrutiny and comes out well validated, it doesn't matter who is funding it, its good science. I would love to respond to all of your points, but my post tend to a get very long. I enjoy you point of view, as it pretty well thought out, but I still dispute. I can't help it, Nature made me this way. : )Understandable. My own get pretty long quite fast, and I won't always have the free time I do now. Overall though, you are a great sparring partner, and I hope to have many more debates with you :)