The problem with the Creationism debate is that they are trying to teach it as science, as an alternative theory to evolution, when in fact, it is a religion, or an alternative faith to science and other religions. It is not acceptable to teach it as science, but perfectly legitimate to teach it as religion in a comparative religious studies course, with equal time to other religious creation myths.
The problem with teaching Creationism as science is that it takes away precious time and resources that are needed for scientific studies, understanding, and experimentation.
When Creationist proponents can design a proper curriculum to teach it as science, with labs and experiments, then perhaps they can get some support. Until then, don't confuse scientific theories with philosophical theories. One is based on empirical evidence and experiments; the other is based on unproven hypothesis of observed phenomena. 

I am very much playing devil's advocate here. 
"Protected by this clause, a creationist could simply label creationism a "hypothesis" or "explanation," and trot out arguments for its "strengths" long since refuted or rejected by the international scientific community."
OK, yes, this would not be cool. But if a teacher - and textbooks were *required* to do the same for evolution as a "hypothesis", wouldn't that just leave it up to the student to decide? I mean, I'm definitely not for teaching creationism exclusively, nor do I think someone who denies evolution should be teaching science at all... but I'm wondering if both views were given some kind of equal "voice" in a classroom, and left for the students to decide, would that please both sides? I thought science was all about examining *varying* hypotheses, anyway.
Incidentally - Lianne, I went to Catholic schools in Canada for my entire K-12 schooling, and creationism was *never* taught in Science class. We were taught evolutionary theory in high school Biology, and the creation stories were taught in religious studies classes. Growing up, I always thought the two "stories" actually complemented one another, and I never really saw them as interfering with one another (in my mind, one was a "big" abstract concept and one was the technical, factual details). I tended to see the creation stories as more of a metaphor than a reality. Then again, I think that's because science stayed in science class, and I was left to put the "pieces" together myself. Some of my Catholic classmates told me that they saw the creation story as being as "real" as the disciples drinking Christ's blood at the Last Supper -- just another metaphor. I.e., even learning the creation story in religion class meant that we viewed it as just another symbolic metaphor, and not necessarily "fact."

Since you are being the "devil's advocate", I will put on my debater's hat and sharpen my tongue. Please pardon the tone.

I must have missed the news when Creationism found their version of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. The last time I checked, "science" refers to the study of reality using the scientific method, combining observation with a theory to explain the observation, AND experimentation to confirm the hypothesis with additional observation.

The problem with calling Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever, a "science" is that it skips the second step. There is no proof of the hypothesis. There has been, as far as I know, no experiments or additional observation to prove it.

Until they fund more research in Christian schools to advance their hypothsis, it is fair to keep this nonsense out of public schools. It is called separation of church and state. If they want to teach Creationism, it is fine to teach it as one faith among many, and teach the other creation myths along with it. But let's NOT call it science. Calling Creationism science is like calling flag waving alone, patriotism. A hypothesis is just a part of science. It is not sufficient. Flag waving is just a part of patriotism. It is not sufficient. To call creationism science, is like calling the weekend flag wavers patriots. It demeans scientists and patriots.

Thanks for trying to see the other side of the issue, Adrienne. I think our little "debate" brings up a good point.

It is not simply a matter of either teach it or not teach it. It is a matter of "how" it is taught. It is a part of our history and I learned about the debate between the evolutionist and creationist in school (not sure if it was on my own in the library or in class) but the debate helped me to understand the difference between the two "theories".

If it is taught in school, creationism is a good opportunity to teach critical thinking and the concept of the scientific method. As long as it is not taught blindly as an accepted validated scientific theory, which it isn't then I have no objection.

Being Christian, I have gone through this struggle, as every Christian scientist must, and I understand the passion behind it but it is dispassionate intelligence that we need to serve the children.

To truly serve the children, all theories should be presented.  Darwinism is a theory, just as Creationism is.  If Creationism is a religion, so is Darwinism, or any other theory.  They have their creeds and their followers.  What is the problem with presenting all sides of an argument, instead of just one that fits the school board's bias?  I find it very disturbing that people who consider themselves liberal are participating in what amounts to book burning.

JMHO... I'm not a "trained educator," but I'm a thinker.
Karen

I forgt to add... God Bless Sarah Palin.  A voice of reason and common sense.... both of which are sadly lacking in education and politics today!

Karen

Karen, I am not sure if you are joking or if you are for real.


Just on the odd chance that you are for real, I'd like to ask you to please explain what you mean, "If Creationism is a religion, so is Darwinism, or any other theory." How do you define religion, theory, and science. In any order that you care to explain, but please explain all three terms.

Also, what are you "thinking" when you accuse people of book burning? That's ironic considering the amount of censorship coming out of right wing politics. 

Finally, the most intriguing comment of yours, must be Sarah Palin being a voice of reason and common sense. Are you saying someone who doubts the validity of global climate change is reasonable and has common sense?

Please, Karen, I wait with baited breath for your reasoned response.

I did explain that both Creationism and Darwinism have their own creeds and followers.  To me, that says that Darwinism is just as much a religion as Creationism.  Creationism has not been proven, but neither has Darwin's Theory of Evolution.  Tossing out Creationism in favor of Darwinism is akin to book burning.

I find it odd that someone who would be in favor of keeping the discussion of Creationism out of school in favor of the politically correct Darwinian theory can talk about right-wing censorship, lol.

I do indeed say that someone who doubts the validity of MANMADE global warming is using reason and common sense.  Our climate is in a constant state of change.  What's the saying?  "The only constant is change." 

Funny how the terminology is changing.  Now it's "global climate change."  What happened to Al Gore's Global Warming?  Manmade global warming (or climate change, if that's the current politically-correct term) is NOT proven science.  For pity's sake, it wasn't long ago we were being told we were going into another Ice Age.  And given that we can't even rely on 10-day weather predictions, how in heaven's name are we supposed to believe anyone can predict what's going to happen in the next 20, 40, 60, years?  What we can predict is that landfills are going to be filled with the mercury-laden government-mandated light bulbs in the years to come, and that out standard of living is going to be significantly lowered when the government will be controlling our thermostats with that "smart grid."

Yes, common sense and reason are in very short supply these days.  No joke.

Theory: speculation without sufficent facts to prove
Religion: fundamental system of belief
Science: something that may be studied or learned

I don't see why Creationism is any less valid than Darwinism, given that they are both speculation... one based on The Holy Bible, and the other on "The Origin of the Species."  What is "The Big Bang Theory" but speculation?  And yet, that is also taught in school.

Look, I'm not saying that one has to believe one or the other, but to deny the fact that what passes for "settled science" is anything but, is shortchanging those who are in school to be educated.  What good is education if it doesn't open the mind?  To teach one theory as "settled science" is the definition of narrow-mindedness.

Kids are forced into government schools.  Can't we at least give them a balanced education?  Either that, or allow school choice.  Let parents use their tax dollars (contrary to popular belief, taxes are the PEOPLE's money, not the government's) to choose the school they want their kids to attend.  What is the government afraid of?

"Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom."  John Adams

Thank you for the response, Karen.


I was hoping your definitions would refer to something more authoritative and substantial, but as it were, from your response, I see where the problem lies.


I will use simply wikipedia, but if you prefer, I am sure other sources will essentially agree with the following:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:1. identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.


The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

---


You will notice that speculation (what you used to define theory) is acceptable colloquially but not formally, and definitely not as a scientific theory. The difference here is the use of observations: to give consistent and reasonable explanations of a set of observations. When Creationism satisfies this definition, then you can call it a scientific theory comparable to the theory of evolution and teach it in a science class. Until then, you can teach it as a religious doctrine in humanities classes.


Here is wikipedia's explanation of Religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.[1] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos, and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.


Notice there is not a word about theory. In fact, Religion and Theory can be said to be mutually exclusive. One is based on personal faith and accepted truth of a higher power; the other is based on objective empirical evidence that is devoid of supernatural explanations. To pass Creationism off as a scientific theory is as offensive as passing science off as a religion. In fact, one might even say heretical.


Wikipedia's explanation on Science:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes termed experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs, though the two are often interconnected.

Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, record observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The outcome or product of this empirical scientific process is the formulation of theory that describes human understanding of physical processes and facilitates prediction.

I think this is self-explanatory, even without including the part I bolded in the second paragraph where it says independent of religious or political outlook.

The problem with the last eight years of the Bush Administration has been the horrible treatment of science and the pursuit of truth. It is very ironic for someone of your political pursuasion to call anyone else on book-burning. In fact, it verges on unabashed hypocrisy.

Quoting the founding fathers while doing what would abhor them the most, the breakdown of the separation of church and state, is indeed, unabashed hypocrisy.

I am happy to listen to you explaining "The principles of freedom", if you will be so kind, Or, now that we have sorted the understanding of Theory, Religion, and Science, I am happy to listen to your explanation of "Thinking, Reason, and Common Sense." Please feel free to choose these definitions in any order you like. I am particularly interested in "principles of freedom" but if you prefer, "thinking, reason, and common sense" would do, too.