Quote: wannabuyamonkey said: First off simply by ruling out creationism you are assuming there is no devine intervention. THAT is an assumption. The theory in creationism is that creatures are intellegently designed. It's babble fish logic to assume that because the theory is that there is an intellegent force involved it can't be scientific. So what you've done is ruled out a possibility without testing it and THAT is unscientific.
Ok, tell me how one goes about submitting intelligent design theory to an empirical test.
Quote: What most of "creation science" does is challenge the theory of evolution.
Which theory of evolution?
Quote: The reason why relegious people want the science of creation taght in schools or at least a challenge to evolution is because otherwise kids are taught wrongly that what they're taught at home is anti-scientific that thier belifs aren't an option outside of theoretical. As I've mentioned before only to fall on dead ears what most schools are teaching are debunked theories. So i would ask you why would you be apposed to legitimate challenges to YOUR unprovable theory? Why are you opposed to both sides of this story being told?
For the same damn reason I've been harping on this! Intelligent Design or Creationism all ASSUME some sort of divine/supernatural force/being/entity created life on earth and is responsible for the evolution of species. The cause of everything is, therefore, assumed from the outset. And that is not Science. Science works to find the cause and it goes about without presupposing the cause.
And I'm not saying Creationism/intelligent Design theory can't be taught in schools. I'm saying it doesn't belong in a Science Cirriculum. You can put it in a philosophy cirriculum or a comparative relgions cirriculum. But not a science one.
