Define ‘I think’.
Your silly argument rests on the absurd notion that ‘every article in the physical world’ was made by humans (you extrapolate from cars and watches to stones and trees).
Try again.

Breathtaking generalisation. There are plenty of science teachers who are very good at making the subject(s) interesting.

It frightens insecure people.

Lucky for you, I cast my vote in Israel.

Mettaculture, re Cain’s wife, my little one came up with that one in second grade too – her teacher told me with beaming eyes (‘Such clever questions she asks’. It was a secular school so not seen as a problem). I believe there’s a Midrash (interpretation) that says Adam and Eve had daughters that aren’t mentioned (Yossi?). So she wasn’t an alien. It was just a bit of early incest.

Of course actual fossils were often unearthed in the ancient world and the largest number seemed to be from China.

Dragon’s eggs were a rare item from Cathay (actual dinosaur eggs it appears).

Then again at the British museum I have seen vegetable lambs of Tartary, mermaids (fish and monkeys stuck together) and Sea Bishops.

Sea Bishops were known to come ashore in England and give the odd sermon.

They were actually skate pressed and pushed into a Bishop’s mitre shape.

BTW my church was very high Anglican (and the vicar was called father and reputed to be more Catholic than the Pope) and they never actually insisted on the facts of creation, it was simply an unwritten rule that accepted a division of truth between the secular scientific sphere and that of religion.

Maybe Christianity was still confident enough then (there was a lot of it about where I grew up including in school) not to feel challenged by science.

I think the point was to have a dual consciousness and not accept the bible as literally, but spiritually true, and so it was not appropriate for smart alec brats like me reared on Star Trek to give them a hard time.

Of course I thought I was terribly clever and was convinced I had proof when told that Cain slew Able and was exiled later returning with a wife!

As he was the only remaining son of Adam and Eve I wanted to know where he had got the wife from.

Was she an alien, I asked?

I do think it must cause all kinds of mental disorder actually trying to hold that scripture is literally true.

Well there seems to be some difference between your view and Reiss’ view because the sort of discussion he is envisaging will not do any “exposing” of falsehoods because he thinks that creationism is not a misconception about how things are ( it is not in the game of making claims that can be true or false ). As I said it is not obvious how one takes a critical stance towards a position which is incapable of being false.

Note though that Michael Reiss now has the additional problem : if creationism cannot be false ( follows from his take on its content ) it follows that it cannot be true either ! But this is weird because it seems like 1) a complete misunderstanding of creationism which would never take itself to be a kind of fiction incapable of describing the real world. 2) I am not entirely sure what is going on but my hunch is that he has been influenced by Kuhn’s work ( not surprising because Kuhn is absolutely everywhere ) who provides just the right kind of tools for defending creationism against science. Unfortunately the highly unstable position that this gives rise to ( relativism for starters ) is hard to defend and maybe he is right to keep this in the background.

It seems like the more one unpacks Reiss view the more weird it becomes.

That fellow Reiss seems hellbent getting creationism in to the classroom one way or the other.

How to convert a generation – 2006
Reiss describes the new courses as a “significant shift” away from the traditional aim of school science – to prepare candidates for A-levels. … “It is trying both to provide a genuine education in science for the majority who will not study it after the age of 16, and to be an exciting and challenging basis for those who, we hope, will study after the age of 16.”
…
Reiss also says the new courses increase creationism’s presence in the science classroom. “I think all the new GCSE science courses open up the possibilities for discussions about socio-scientific issues, including creationism,”

This fellow Reiss appear to engage in a lot of muddled talk, very open ended so it’s difficult to nail down what he really mean.

What’s the underlying aim, dumbing down of the masses that are no longer needed as a educational potential? One come to think of the Hitchens brothers position, that seemed to be sort of religion is needed to keep the masses obeisant and in check so they don run amok in unmoral activities, if “we” believe is irrelevant. As someone said “the opium …”

It’s quite remarkable how the “palinistas” have advanced their positions over the last 2 to 3 decades. The word of wisdom from people like John Adams or Russell’s “why I’m not a Christian” seems to faster and faster fade away in a distant historic obscurity.

I’m not knowledgeable of curriculums of religious culture and ethics but I doubt that the they include a serious scientific approach to the validity of sources to holy scriptures. Do they inform the pupils like Hitchens put it “that monotheistic religion[s] is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents.” That should of course be the right thing to do so children can make a informed decision on such important matters.

If so of course the ill-arranged set of plagiarisms that is Islam have to be excluded, if you don’t want schools bombed and teachers killed.