Creation vs. science so called

An item I read recently on the Web caught my attention; not for its profundity but for its absurdity.

1. "...to require teachers to give serious consideration to creationism is as unjustified as requiring them to teach other doctrines – such as astrology, alchemy and phrenology...” (Stephen G. Brush, The Science Teacher 4/1981, p. 33)
- this is comical because all three of these (what B. calls pseudo-sciences) were once considered science; and cutting edge science at that.
- the bible condemns and forbids astrology; and did so while it was considered the science of its day.... when it was very influential in the highest political circles of the ancient world. The bible forbad astrology long before John Dewey and the Humanists came to town. (In fact astrology is just the idea men are controlled by material forces; which in fact is very similar to modern secular beliefs of environmental determinism.)
- one of the major reasons science developed in the west was because the bible forbad magic and astrology, numerology and fortune telling.
- Phrenology is an expression of materialism; which the bible is utterly opposed to. P. was intended to be an empirical and scientific psychology; a secular substitute for ethics and for biblical morality. It was based on the idea there is no mind as such, and that mental abilities are really just actions of the brain; that it's the phyaical brain that is all that matters. (Not much different than the ideas of our day in fact. In fact something akin to phrenology IS taught in the schools. If matter is all that exists; if there is no mind but only brain, then some form of 'phrenology' is all there is left to the materialist. It makes little difference whether he's 'reading' internal configurations' or external bumps.)
- Alchemy of course was considered hi-tech science at one time; even if it was surrounded with all kinds of magic, ritual, superstition and the like. (One might call it a precursor of the modern idea of inorganic evolution; an idea I consider as absurd as alchemy... if not more absurd as the changes in inorganic evolution are supposed to have occurred without any intelligent assistance :-)
- the bible tells us to judge men by their fruits; ie. by the lives they lead... not by the bumps on their skull. (And not by the words they speak; their 'pc' professions.) As always the bible is far superior to any of the humanist substitutes men invent to replace it.
- the true science of orgins is creation. The Truth of the matter is the world was created. It's only because men have rebelled against their creator that they reject creation for the humanist substitute of evolution. Calling e. science doesn't make it true. (Which it obviously isn't; having been refuted more thoroughly than any theory on record.)
- In fact many pseudo sciences are taught in the government schools; ie. Marxism, materialism, evolutionism, and the like.

Note; quote taken from 'The Baloney Detector: your guide to clear thinking' (A valuable online resource; where David Coppedge uses the evolution/creation debate to teach people thinking skills... and how to read more wisely.)