[taxesareforever]

I say that their claims are, thus far, the best explanation for given observations.

I wonder how many people would be in prison if "best explanation" was the deciding data used to convict someone. I have stated that the claims cannot be proven, like all claims in science.

I disagree with you. There are some claims in science which can be proven. How about a fossil? Science says it is a remnant from the past. That can be proven. Science says that the planets orbit the earth. That can be proven. How do you believe that it should be taught?

I believe it shouldn't be taught. I thought education was about teaching truths. If it isn't, then many claims could be pushed as "best explanation" and taught as if truth. Why are those who believe in the Biblical account of creation and the science that backs it up as "best explanation" considered wackos and their science considered flawed? You know why and so do I. Wouldn't want Satan's lie to be trampled on.

[Dimensio]

I wonder how many people would be in prison if "best explanation" was the deciding data used to convict someone.

Criminal justice is more than determining how an event happened, but also exactly who caused it happen. Thus, there is more information used to determine a verdict -- which, as you must know, is not always correct.

I disagree with you. There are some claims in science which can be proven. How about a fossil? Science says it is a remnant from the past. That can be proven.

Actually, that would be a definition rather than an explanation.

Science says that the planets orbit the earth. That can be proven.

I was unaware that it can be proven that planets orbit the Earth. In fact, I was under the impression that current astrophysics says that this does not occur.

I believe it shouldn't be taught.

Why?

I thought education was about teaching truths.

Science education is about teaching established science.

If it isn't, then many claims could be pushed as "best explanation" and taught as if truth.

So you are suggesting that nothing be explained in science?

Why are those who believe in the Biblical account of creation and the science that backs it up as "best explanation" considered wackos and their science considered flawed?

Please provide the scientific evidence that "backs up" the Biblical account of creation. Thus far, that explanation is excluded because there is no evidence that "backs it up" as science.

You know why and so do I. Wouldn't want Satan's lie to be trampled on.

On the contrary, I do not "know" this. Please explain "Satan's lie", and demonstrate that it actually is a lie from an individual known as "Satan".