Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Evolution is theory presented as theory because it is constantly being tested, creationism is presented as fact because it is an assertion based on no testing of any sort.

But creationism is being tested by those who believe in it. As people assimilate more information, they will incorporate this into what they believe to be facts. Creationism, though, is a very simple theory and isn’t dependent upon many observations (at the simplest level, only one observation is needed: people exist). The point is that I can test this. The presentation of the theory is independent of this. The distinction is subtle, but what I am trying to get at is that it is not the presenter’s (be that the teacher, school, government, etc.) responsibility to “classify” arguments into “facts” and “theory”; therefore, I tend not to see the teaching of creationism as crossing the barrier of church / state. Creationism isn’t a “religious” theory; it is a description of reality, like any other, though relatively simple. Perhaps it is better to leave the evaluation of the theories up to the students (hopefully with some guidance from their parents).

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

But creationism is being tested by those who believe in it.

No, it isn't. You don't test the Word of God(tm). By definition it should exist regardless of what we determine by study.

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

No, it isn't. You don't test the Word of God(tm). By definition it should exist regardless of what we determine by study.

B

Bingo. There’s the distinction I was looking for. The idea that something should not be tested is religion; it is not the statement in itself that is “religious.” That’s where the line is crossed. Theories are not religion; believing that one possesses “facts” is.