With creationism facts only can be taught in science class. By learning creationism students will be better to distinguish fact from opinion, and produce pure facts in science class, without their opinion mixed into the facts.
"Pure facts" sounds like a fishy topic here. Mainly because "pure facts" would be above questioning and challenging. However there is a huge line between fact and opinion.
What are some "pure facts" that you would like to see in the classroom and what are some "opinions" you would like to take out?
What happens now is that students put matters of opinion, like morality, into the scientific fact category. That makes for facts which are prejudiced, and opinion which are asserted as fact.
Typically religion (especially authoritarian religions) are the worst offenders of this kind. Morality isn't studied in the science classroom of children. There are extensive studies going on right now to try and pinpoint the biological factors in "morality" as well as psychological, sociological and anthropological studies being done to study the development of morality as well as its implications to and by the societies and their denizens. However that does not tell us what is moral and what is immoral as rule book.
There is philosophy which is NOT science that have schools of thoughts for deriving moral truths.
Which one of these were you talking about?
Take something simple and practical like giving an accurate eyewitness account. If a student knows that to obtain facts one must copy, and not choose, in producing a conclusion, then that is good guidance. It will produce more accurate eye witness accounts, they will have better skills of observation.
Eyewitness accounts are great and all but how does this develop "pure facts". Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and often discredited in terms of evidence in science or in courts for that matter.
