So even if we knew that it was the best science could offer, we couldn't teach it? And doesn't forcing students to recite that there is no creating deity establish a state atheism?
Religion is not science. If you could scientifically prove the existence of a diety, it would no longer be a religion based on faith. Students aren't forced to learn that there is no diety; no textbook comes out and says "There is no god."
Students are supposed to be taught what is supported by science. Intelligent design has no grounding in science.
Isn't the same true of Evolution?
No because evolution can be disproven. Evidence can certainly be found that disproves evolution just as evidence was found that disproved the sun revolved around the earth. But in terms of religion nothing can be disproven because it all has to be based on faith. When creationism supporters are asked about the evidence that supports evolution, they claim it was planted there by god.
You can't disprove something that has no basis in the first place. It's like trying to disprove that Aslan was the savior of Narnia. Scientific evidence must be testable or observable. Evolution can be observed and tested. Intelligent design can't and thus is not science.
I don’t think that anybody would disagree that a fundamental element of science is observation of a phenomenon.
Or the experimentation of such phenomenon. You're right, no one was actually there to witness the event but we do have evidence that suggests it happened. Geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and a slew of other fields all provide evidence of the theories that define the origin of our universe. Remember, everything in science is a theory but theories have to be backed up by evidence. By observing the evidence we can come to educated conclusions that give us the most likely scenario.
To claim that the theories of origin are not science makes about as much sense as claiming that an autopsy can't determine a cause of death because no one actually witnessed it.
I figure it this way... I've got freedom of religeon; evolution is against my religeon. Others have freedom of religeon, so creationism might be against their religeous beliefs.
Evolution may be against your religion but it's based in science. If your religion stated that the earth was flat would you denounce all evidence to the contrary? Yes, you and everyone else here has freedom of religion and that's why nothing but real science should be taught. Religion is based on faith, science is based on facts.
I should rephrase my comment. Science is not fallible. The only thing that's fallible is our interpretation of it. That's why everything is a theory. But theories require evidence; religion doesn't.
