More evidence that we're talking past each other. We're both to blame, but probably me more than you because what I was getting at was tangential.
It may surprise you to know that I am on the fence on creationism being taught in schools as a science. Certainly I don't want such a course to be just a thinly disguised bible study. But I'm reading Dr. Hugh Ross (founder of Reasons To Believe) and so far he has some interesting scientific insights on the creation story that could at some point make creationism a viable science topic.
But on one point, I'll agree with you and go you one better: in the spirit (so to speak) of the scientific method, what should be taught as science in the classroom should be what scientists know, not just what they "think". My point was never to say that metaphysics can be substituted for or is interchangeable with science -- you'd rightly hoist me on my own petard by quoting me on how I said that because science deals strictly with the physical, it cannot touch the metaphysical and thus is far too crude an instrument to comment one way or the other on God, like using my proverbial ruler to measure the pH balance of a pool.
Instead my point was to say there are disastrous consequences for humanity if we extend the level of skepticism necessary to be effective in the lab to every aspect of life because it robs life of its meaning and makes civilization impossible in the long run -- and that therefore it is impossible to entirely compartmentalize science and metaphysics from each other.
With that, I'm through with this thread with no hard feelings toward anyone. We're at a point where neither of us could make our points any clearer. But if you or anyone else wants to continue, you can send me a private message.
There is probably nothing "known" in science, more securely than that evolutionary theory is an accurate, trustworthy thesis, ignorant lay-opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. There is no magic barrier between "think" and "know" in science. We only have a subjective spectrum of assumed certainty--evo is on the high end, and ID is on the low end, alongside cold fusion and perpetual motion, and crystal pyramid energy.
The tidal wave of scientific rigor threatening our shores has not reached my neighborhood.
because it robs life of its meaning and makes civilization impossible in the long run --
Kind of like it robs science labs of their meaning and civilization?
and that therefore it is impossible to entirely compartmentalize science and metaphysics from each other.
There is no great move afoot to do this. Science has widely acknowledged metaphysical foundations and problems. Theological metaphysics and science are not in conflict, they simply aren't much related to each other, except in the fevered imaginations of the Discovery Institute and its fellow travelers.