Priceguy: If we found fossils of advanced animals at a level where we would expect to find only fossils of things like trilobites and ferns, we’d need to seriously revamp current theory. If we found hominid skulls in the abdomen of a T. rex fossil, we’d need to explain that find somehow. Both would serve to falsify evolution as we currently know it. But it would take more than that to lend credence to creationism, simply because creationism requires the existence of supernatural forces.
thatDDperson: I’m detecting some defensiveness. I didn’t attack you, your schools, your teachers, or your God damned state. I only attacked the idea that creationism is a theory (a position you apparently have backed down on) and the notion of putting creationism in science textbooks (a position you may never back down on).
Look at it this way: We seperate curricula based on relevance and credibility. We don’t put essays on the history of needlepoint in the biology textbooks due to the first, and we don’t transcribe the ravings of psychotic loonies into history texts due to the second.
Of course, those are extreme examples used simply to drive the fundamental point home.
Similarly, we do not keep antiquated theories in science textbooks unless the text could also serve as a survey of the history of science. In that case, such theories are clearly marked as antiquated and their flaws are pointed out in a way to lead students to why the current theories are as they are. We do that simply to maintain the credibility of the textbooks, so we do not teach lies to our children.
The current debate over putting creationism in science textbooks is not over whether it should be presented as an antiquated dogma if it is left in at all. It is over whether it should be presented as a concept with the weight of the term `theory’ behind it. That’s quite another matter.
The term `theory’ has a precise meaning in science: It is an explanation of a process or a causal relationship that can be verified and disproven simply on the strength of empirical evidence. It does not require belief in anything. It can stand or fall on its own merits, without being part of a faith structure or social context. Calling creationism a theory in a science textbook is like calling a duck a raptor in a biology textbook: It is a misuse of the terminology in a way that can be highly confusing to students.
But it goes deeper than that: If creationism is accepted as comparable to evolution, the whole notion of objective reality goes out the window. As creationism cannot be disproven (can’t reason someone out of a position he didn’t reason himself into), we’ve introduced an article of faith into an otherwise objective, rational pursuit. Faith has no place in science, any more than cruelty has a place in medicine.
