Yes this is one of those ‘teach all theories’ posts. Not quite a ‘teach the controversy’ but similar. It doesn’t have to be an equal time type of thing but how can I teach such perspectives on a science class (without adding extra verbiage that will upset some students and leave me continually with a subset of nasty student evaluations)?
For example, in Cosmology, there isn’t a single thing in the entire universe that points to a young Earth or universe. The idea is rather absurd with annual records of varves or ice cores, with reliable radiometric dates and the many other dating methods from cosmology or geology. How do I discuss some of the best evidence provided by the world’s biggest YEC organization of the Earth’s decaying magnetic field that features a graph that was literally made up and that ignores over 98% of the geomagnetic reversals and evidence that it was weaker at points in the past. Or how about the origin of the elements which is either the well studied field of nucleosynthesis… Or God just made them the way they are as Danny Faulkner notes:
Can we develop a creationary model to explain the chemical composition of the universe? Perhaps. Much of the Creation Week was miraculous, or at least outside of the realm that science today is equipped to probe, so one could posit that God created the elemental abundances pretty much as they exist today.
He goes on to further proposes maybe nucleosynthesis happens as we know it to today much faster in the past. So stars live and die at rapid rates and gravitationally collapse and rinse and repeat or something.
Anyways this is an honest question. How can I fairly present YEC ideas (presumably giving some students the idea they have equal merit) such that YEC students won’t feel I’m just teaching ‘my opinion’ with bias?
Note: this also applies to the anti-science Old Earth Creationist positions that reject things like the theory of evolution/common ancestry.