On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But on a more serious note, trying to learn how to do long division and > studying creationism vs evolution is a different ball game. > Since evolution is still just a theory, and not a law, why not present > another possible theory. I don't advocate doing too deep into creationism > in a science class but it can't hurt to briefly mention, "And there is > another less scientific theory, creationism, that competes with evolution. > It's the theory that...blah blah blah."
The answer to that is deceptively simple: It isn't a theory. Now, you might call it a theory because the word "theory" is used differently by lay people and scientists. But we are talking about a science class here and therefore we have to use the word theory in context that scientists use it. Creationism does not purport to provide a scientific theory. It does not provide testable hypotheses and posits as its prime agent a force which supposedly exists outside of the scientific realm. If you cannot use the methods of science to test a hypothesis and the hypothesis requires something which is said to exist outside of natural law, then it cannot be a scientific theory. It might still be correct, of course. But even if correct, it is not a scientific theory. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:275893 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
