Hm, I think the above are missing the point. Without the facility of critical thinking and analysis, either one is merely argument-by-authority and evolution becomes as much of a "religious" doctrine as creationism.
That said, creationists are even more opposed to critical thinking than to evolution, because it outright encourages people to question Authority.
I mostly agree with smallship1 and redbird but found it interesting enough to quote anyhow for more or less the reason you gave. The most effective approach[*] probably lies somewhere between (not just 'between', but with the components presented in the proper manner and order).
[*] Assuming, of course, that the goal is instruction in science, not indoctrination -- an assumption most of my readers will probably think goes without saying.
Bingo. Teach accepted science, teach theories as theories, but above all else, teach the ability to think, which too many people seem to lack. I still remember one of my "aha!" moments in this vein quite clearly; a history teacher presented some evidence, explained "what it meant", and asked us how many bought it. Every hand went up. Then he read us "Digging the Weans" by Robert Nathan and most of us got it. (Sadly, a good chunk of the class still did not.) What's sad is that I remember this so clearly because it was unusual. I want that kind of poking, challenging, critiquing, and analyzing to happen every single day in a child's upbringing.
(no subject)
That said, creationists are even more opposed to critical thinking than to evolution, because it outright encourages people to question Authority.
(no subject)
[*] Assuming, of course, that the goal is instruction in science, not indoctrination -- an assumption most of my readers will probably think goes without saying.
(no subject)