Ima Fish says:

Creationists argue that they are only offering an alternative theory to kids. Normally intelligent people get confused by that and think, “Why not give kids multiple theories and have them make up their own minds?”

To show why the idea ridiculous and how creationism is clearly not science, I ask why we should limit alternative theories only to creation. For example, I propose that we teach that gravity is caused by an invisible intelligent being which makes things fall. How about medicine? I propose that we alternatively teach that people get sick and well again only because an invisible intelligent being decides so. Or how about political science, I propose that we teach that people don’t get elected because of votes, but because an intelligent being makes them get elected.

Everyone can see the absurdity in these examples. And guess what, creationism is as equally absurd.

fischer lawrence says:

Attempts by the religious right to pass legislation on the teaching of scientific creationism–or intelligent design as it’s been repackaged–along with evolution as another “theory” of life on Earth has led me to agree with creationists that science education in our country needs help. The misunderstanding of creationists, and by extension those that follow their misinformation, of how scientific creationism can better explain the evolution of life on Earth is sad enough, but their scientific illiteracy is truly a clear calling to be concerned for science education in our country.

The misconceptions and misrepresentations of scientific creationists regarding concepts like the second law of thermodynamics, macro and micro-evolution, and their inability to examine data like that evidenced in the fossil record, are clear signals that large masses of people in our society do not understand, nor even attempt to understand that which they want to bring down. Couple this with their blaming many of the troubles in our schools and society on Darwinism and the teaching of evolution and we have a clear candidate for a poster child representing the need to increase the quantity and to improve the quality of science education in our schools.

But let me direct the scientific creationists–who might dismiss me as a Godless atheist (I’m not) for my belief that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on our planet–to someone they might listen to more than me. I’m sure that most anti-evolutionists see William J. Bennett as a point of light in education in our country today.

In his book, The Educated Child – A Parent’s Guide From Preschool Through Eighth Grade, Dr. Bennett addresses the teaching of evolution in our schools. I must admit that I picked up this book thinking that I would find yet one more tirade against the teaching of evolution and for the teaching of creationism in our schools. After reading it I came away pleased that a person creationists wouldn’t categorize as an “educational elitist” could display the clear thinking and understanding that evolution is not the enemy. He recognizes it as a scientific theory (and he understands what the term theory means in science and does not play off of the public’s misunderstanding of the term) that is not under fire by the majority of people in the world. He understands that it is a central concept in science that must be taught in our schools.

More importantly to the evolution/creationism controversy, he points out that religious beliefs, like creationism, are best taught at home, by parents as they are a matter of faith, not science. In his words:

“The vast majority of American teachers understand that science deals with observable, testable phenomena, while faith reaches far beyond such evidence. Therefore science class is not a good forum in which to debate or test one’s religious beliefs. Most teachers recognize that their job is to teach the prevailing scientific theory, the responsibility for relating the theory to one’s religious beliefs falls to family and clergy.”

This entry is not meant to be a rant against religion, far from it. As a science teacher I had no problem talking about other views of creation with my students. Although I would not provide equal time in my science class for religious beliefs, my students realized that I honored their faith. My reason for writing this is out of concern for all education in general, not just science education. Sadly, many on the religious right channel their energies into common misconceptions about what evolution is, and integrating religion into science education and the schools rather than focus on the real problems in education. We’ve all got a lot of education reform work to do–we can’t afford to get sidetracked on matters that are not focused on real issues.

SuperJoeCool says:

I grow concerned with the divisiveness in this debate. I’ve lived on both sides and neither camp has the complete answer. However, there are a number of outdated creationists who make it hard to get reasonable points heard. They are overwhelmed by the emotion that challenges to their faith represent. A number of organizations are changing this and do treat creationism as a theory.

Oddly enough the evolutionary camp is becoming highly emotional (read above) because there are number of problems with evolutionary theory (or at least it’s current state).

The concepts of intelligent design (anthropic principle) have not solely sprung forth from the creationists but also from agnostic biologists (read Darwin’s Black Box) and physicists (see http://www.reasons.org – even Hawking and Einstein dance around this subject falling back on emotion).

All the tirades I’ve read above are merely emotional evolution backers who support untenable theories like punctuated equilibrium and multiple universes. The math used to support multiple universes can be used to quite clearly show support for a Creator.

I do agree that many religions have difficulty unifying the human study of the creator (religion) with written texts and tradition.

Mr. Dvorak – finding a definition in a dictionary doesn’t make it so – actually you didn’t quote a source as a good scientist would. A theory is a hypothesis which requires experiments utilizing the scientific method inorder to disprove it. More recently, some have accepted positive proofs but this is still an open question.

In regards to testability both evolution and creation are untestable through experimentation and some could argue not theories at all. We can investigate both and see which ‘paradigm’ holds up the best (top-down science) but until we have a validated unified theory and an understanding about dimensions which we currently do not have ‘access’ to study, both options will remain paradigms.

Right now there is quite a lot supporting some Creative being which is holding as much water or more than current evolutionary theory.

Thomas says:

“Intelligent design” or any other theory that presumes the existence of a supernatural being does not belong in science. That’s the core issue. Science only deals with observable, natural phenomena.

In regards to testability both evolution and creation are untestable through experimentation and some could argue not theories at all.

That statement is both patently wrong and misleading. Creationism, by definition cannot be verified through experimentation because is it not a scientific theory. Its premise includes something which can never be proven and thus has no scientific merit. On the other hand, evolution theory has been substantiated in numerous ways from numerous fields. Go to TalkOrigins.com.

Right now there is quite a lot supporting some Creative being which is holding as much water or more than current evolutionary theory.

Firstly, making such a statement is a beacon to how little you understand about the scientific method. Secondly, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the existence of one or more uber-beings. There never will be any such evidence which is why it is considered a matter of faith.

Unless we realize that the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent another Church of England and Inquisition, and not to completely cut religiosity out of civic life, this war of misunderstanding will continue.

There is nothing wrong with the people that work in government being religious, however, government should not itself ever endorse or favor any religion over another. I believe that is the current interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The reason is that any such endorsement de facto establishes a government religion. Our country is already precipitously close to legislatively excluding other religions (e.g. Christmas being a federal holiday, the “Under God” in the Pledge”)