At risk of this turning into a religion blog, I gotta mention this :

The Blount County Board of Education denied the adoption of three new biology textbooks because they teach evolution but do not cover creationism…

“With the overwhelming references to evolution, I don’t feel comfortable with (adopting these texts),” Treadway said.

Simerly said she is concerned with how evolution is approached in the selected biology texts, because creationism is not addressed.

“I do not believe that we evolved from anything other than human beings,” she said.

Creationism, while it may make for some interesting religious dogma, isn’t science and therefore has no place in any science classes. Hiding under the buzzwords “creation science” and “intelligent design” is an organized effort to replace a valid and universally accepted scientific theory with a repackaged version of the Judeo-Christian creation myth (minus the talking snake and the apple, for now). Since both Raelians and Scientologists believe that we are descended from aliens (the Elohim and the Thetans, respectively), shouldn’t their “theories” also be given equal time ins science classes so kids can make up their own minds? Of course not. As someone pointed out in the comments section of this site, not all “theories” are created equal :

It’s like a student claiming that Napoleon actually won at Waterloo. When faced with overwhelming evidence that he did not, the student then simply shrugs and says that it is a difference of opinion and that the Napoleon-loses advocates are not giving due consideration to the Napoleon-wins theory.

Like the Scientologist belief that a galactic ruler named Xenu ruled the Earth (then known as Teegeeack) 75 million years ago or the hypothetical student who believes Napoleon won, creationism doesn’t deserve to be taught in science classes because it doesn’t fit the same criteria as the rest of the curriculum. Creationism is a hypothesis at best. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the scientific method should know the differences between hypotheses and theories :

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with “laws of nature,” suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, “It’s only a theory.” For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because “Gravity is only a theory.”

But there’s a greater danger in teaching creationism alongside evolution. If we allow an untestable hypothesis like creationism to be taught side-by-side with accepted scientific theories, aren’t we undermining the whole reason for having science classes in the first place? In his excellent book “Why People Believe Weird Things” Michael Shermer makes this response to the creationist argument that the educational process should be concerned with teaching all sides of an issue :

Exposure to the many facets of issues is indeed a part of the general educational process, and it might be appropriate to discuss creationism in courses on religion, history, or even philosophy but most certainly not in science; similarly, biology courses should not include lectures on American Indian creation myths. There is considerable harm in teaching creation-science as science because the consequent blurring of the line between religion and science means that students will not understand what the scientific paradigm is and how to apply it properly. Moreover, the assumptions behind creationism compromise a two-pronged attack on all the sciences, not just on evolutionary biology. One, if the universe and Earth are only about ten thousand years old, then the modern sciences of cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and early human history are all invalid. Two, as soon as the creation of even one species is attributed to supernatural intervention, natural laws and inferences about the workings of nature become void. In each case, all science becomes meaningless.

But I seriously doubt the “creation scientists” have ever given the issue that much thought. I’m sure they’re still trying to reject the evolutionist claim that “people come from monkeys” (note : Evolutionists have never claimed that humans are descended from apes. Even pre-Darwinian evolutionists mostly agreed that humans and apes shared a common ancestor). The fact is, if creationism was a valid scientific theory, then it would already be taught in science classes. Creationism wasn’t discarded because of the myth of the increasing secularization of our society (as Calpundit points out, church attendance has been going up steadily for over 200 years), it was thrown out because scientific evidence doesn’t support it.

Having lost the battle within the scientific community, they’ve taken the step of trying to change the minds of school board members, judges, and state legislators. In other words, they’ve failed in their attempts to convince scientists that their “theory” is valid, so they’ve instead convinced non-scientists (who often share their anti-evolution prejudices) that the educational establishment is somehow “supressing” the evidence that supports creationism and that schoolchildren are getting only one half of the story.

It’s just a matter of time before Creationism is held in the same regard as the Flat Earth Society :

“You can’t orbit a flat earth,” says [International Flat Earth Research Society president Charles K.] Johnson. “The Space Shuttle is a joke–and a very ludicrous joke.”

“The whole point of the Copernican theory is to get rid of Jesus by saying there is no up and no down,” declares Johnson. “The spinning ball thing just makes the whole Bible a big joke.”

“Wherever you find people with a great reservoir of common sense,” he says, “they don’t believe idiotic things such as the earth spinning around the sun. Reasonable, intelligent people have always recognized that the earth is flat.”

Sure, that sounds crazy, but is it any crazier than this?

A large subset of creation scientists could be called “Biblical creationists”, who take the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be real history, including the creation of all things in six 24-hour days, the existence of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, the unnatural introduction of “death” into the perfect creation because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and the occurence of a world-wide flood (Noah’s flood) which destroyed most life and greatly affected the processes operating on the earth. Most creation scientists believe that the earth is “young” (on the order of ten thousand years).