I believe science should be taught in science class. So do I. Unlike almost every anti-evolution person I've ever conversed with or listened to or read the works of, however, I'm actually familiar with the science, how science works, the scientific method, and the vast amount of evidence available on this issue.
What most anti-evolutionists mean by "science", however, is "whatever we happen to believe fervently in, which we'll slap a label of 'science' on, while denouncing as 'non-science' any part of real, established science that clashes with our existing presumptions."
How did you mean it?
Science as defined by the scientific method, consists of things that were observed or are repeatable.
Wrong. You're not starting out very well here.
More accurately (but even this doesn't cover the full story), it's defined by *testable* things based on *evidence* which is observable AND testable. Note the several large differences between this and your version. The *testing* itself and the *evidence* itself must be observable and repeatable (i.e., repeatably testable), which is NOT the same thing as the phenomenon *itself* being directly observable. If you're unclear on the difference, go watch a CSI show -- to reconstruct how a crime was committed (or how an accidental death happened, etc.), they don't need to repeatedly kill the victim over and over again, nor do they need to find someone who was there and saw it happen. They do, however, need evidence which can be observed and tested, and which can have the tests repeated by an independent tester (such as one chosen by the defense attorney) if necessary in order to confirm the tests and to rule out error, dishonesty, bias, etc.
If you're *still* unclear on the difference, read: Explaining the Scientific Method (to Creationists)
There are no observer’s records of evolution nor has it been repeated.
See above -- you're insisting on ludicrous standards, one not required for any other branch of science. Try again. For how science is *actually* done in order to accurately reconstruct and confirm past events, however, again see: Explaining the Scientific Method (to Creationists)
We do however have an eyewitness record of creation.
Really? Cool. When can we interview him or her?
If on the other hand he/she is unavailable for questions, and you're relying on an alleged written account by an alleged witness, we await your attempts to demonstrate conclusively that the piece of parchment in question was actually directly written by the alleged eyewitness, that it's actually what it purports to be and not an old bedtime story passed down through generations, that you have an original copy and not an Nth-hand transcription which may have been endlessly altered by transcription errors or edits by overzealous copyists, that it is not contradicted by dozens of other documents also purporting to be an account of creation by an eyewitness, that its contents are in excellent accord with independent evidence which can be used to judge its veracity and accuracy, etc. And so on.
We'll wait.
The Bible also tells us that at some point creation will also be repeated as a new heavens and a new earth will be created by God.
So?
So evolution could certainly not claim to be a more scientific theory of our origin.
Wait, what? Sure it could, because it is. It's a more scientific theory because unlike your version, science has confirmed the validity of evolutionary biology a vast number of times in dozens of multiply independent cross-confirming ways, through literally millions of observations involving a vast number of experiments, field studies, and mountains of evidence, and evolutionary biology has passed huge numbers of potential falsification tests with flying colors. That's science.
An unbiased Scientist would also considers all possible explanations.
We do. A "possible explanation" is a hypothesis, and science examines as many possible hypotheses as it can. However, you're forgetting the part where many hypotheses end up being rightly discarded because they fail falsification tests, are by their nature impossible to either confirm or falsify, or otherwise get ruled out by failing to match the real-world evidence.
An explanation would not be ruled out simply because it is also an article of Christian faith.
You're right, and it's not. Explanations are ruled out because they don't work, they don't match the evidence or they fail upon experimental testing, etc. It's not our fault that lot of the "explanations" favored by adherents of a number of religions fail in this manner when tested. This is true even when they're tested by the faithful. Even long before Darwin, beliefs in a 6000-year life of the Earth, and of a global flood, had been discarded by scientists who were good Christians, because the mounting evidence ruled out these "explanations".
For example, as early as the mid 1850's, most geologists had realized that the geologic record was not consistent with a global flood. A specific case: in 1857 Hugh Miller -- a creationist geologist -- wrote of his conclusions that at most, the Biblical flood was a local flood in the Mideast, since geology showed no signs of a global flood. On page 327 of his book, "The Testimony of the Rocks, he wrote:
"No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the older geologic systems, -- Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary."
He wrote this not because he was biased against Christianity, he wrote it because the evidence had falsified that explanation. And so it is today as well.
Belief in anything unproved is faith.
Defining "faith" in such a manner defines it so broadly that almost everything qualifies, making the definition rather meaningless. "Proof" is a standard unavailable in this real world -- it's only possible in artificial realms such as mathematics where the writer is free to set the rules by personal fiat.
It's more accurate (and more matching the common use of the word) to define "faith" as that which is believed despite the inability to verify them.
Believing in evolution takes faith
Nope. It doesn't take "faith" to have confidence in the validity of evolutionary biology, it takes knowledge, understanding of the relevant processes, and familiarity with the evidence. For any part of evolutionary biology, the tenets can be personally verified and double-checked. No "faith" necessary in the least. "Faith" is for things which *can't* be checked for validation. Evolutionary biology can.
and the details of the theory itself are in a constant state of flux.
The "details", yes, but this is true of any field of science. So? The foundations of evolutionary biology, however, are stable, well-established, stronger than ever, and getting stronger each day as more and more evidence accumulates.
Those on the leading edge of evolutionary theory willingly admit that most of what I was taught thirty years ago about evolution they now known to be impossible.
With all due respect, that's horse crap. I've been following this topic in great depth for over thirty years myself, and there's not a single thing that was being taught thirty years ago that is now "known to be impossible".
You're getting your stuff from creationist tracts instead of science journals, I can tell... Big mistake.
So why teach as dogma the current theory of evolution which will ultimately be called impossible by evolutionists of the future.
Because a) it's not taught as dogma, it's taught as the best understanding based on the best current evidence, and b) your fantasy that you have a crystal ball that lets you confidently state what scientists will be saying in thirty years is a little disturbing.
Science is always a matter of the best current explanation of the best available evidence. And it's more than willing to update its explanations if new evidence allows more accurate fine-tuning. But that's hardly a good reason for the common creationist attempt to use this fact as an excuse to say, "well, maybe it's all crap despite science's many stellar successes, let's not bother teaching anything, and I'll just believe whatever in the hell I want". Sorry, but that way lies idiocy.
If we’re interested in teaching science we should teach kids to question the theory if we have any interest in them refining it when they grow up.
There's a big difference between "questioning the theory" in a healthy scientific way, and "questioning the theory" in the irresponsible, anti-science way the anti-evolution folks want to encourage. I'm all for the former, but the latter is an insult to the Enlightenment.
If we teach kids to accept the theory how it is and not to doubt it where it conflicts with scientific evidence we are teaching it to them as a religious belief.
That would be if that's how it was being taught, but it's not. For example, evolutionary biology is not taught in a way that "conflicts with scientific evidence". If you think it is, you're entirely welcome to give what you consider your very best examples (choose no more than three for starters, so make them count).
Evolution has always gone against the second law of thermodynamics
ROFL!!!!! No, son, it hasn't.
I've seen endless creationist attempts to explain why they think it does, and every single time, they've made complete idiots of themselves. I invite you to present *your* attempt, let's see how well *you* do.
I'll even give you a few pointers to help you avoid the usual creationist pitfalls: First, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (henceforth denoted as "SLoT") does NOT say that "information cannot increase" or "order cannot increase", like so many clueless creationists idiotically seem to think it does. If it *did* actually say such a thing, and if that were true, not only would evolution be impossible, but so would snowflake formation, the production of babies, and the growth of an acorn into an oak tree. Second, the SLoT is essentially a mathematical statement. In order to demonstrate that some process is or is not a violation of the SLoT, you're going to have to mathematically analyze its entropy relative to that of the Universe as a whole. Go for it. Finally, evolution is the change in genetic frequency in a population over time. If you think that you have found a way to use the SLoT or any other scientific law to demonstrate that changing genetic frequencies are impossible, then you've made a mistake, because genetic frequencies really do change over time out here in the Real World(tm).
Before you fall flat on your face trying to flog the "evolution violates SLoT" idiocy like so many other hapless creationists, read this first, then if you still think you have a case, feel free to present it: Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism
and the recent advances in genetic study have caused the theory of evolution to evolve on a daily basis as things once taught are found to be false.
Really? Such as? You sort of "forgot" to mention that part. I've been reading thousands of journal articles on advances in genetics, and I have yet to see one that actually invalidates a fundamental tenet of evolutionary biology. Quite the contrary, in fact, they keep reconfirming and extending the validity of evolutionary biology. So what'cha got? Be specific.
To not allow evidence pro and con and competing theories to be taught is close minded.
Just as soon as someone actually comes up with a "competing theory", let us know, and we'll be glad to teach its pros and cons. Until then, we'll keep teaching the only scientific theory of biological change which currently exists, and that's evolutionary biology.
Hint: Neither creationism nor "Intelligent Design" are scientific theories. They're loose hypotheses which have yet (after thousands of years of trying) to gain enough explanatory power, much less supporting evidence, to rise to the level of actual "theory".
In other words, as soon as creationism/ID manage to actually *produce* some science, then they'll have something worth presenting in science class. And yes, I've seen the claims -- they're hand-waving and propaganda, not actual science. Again, if you think you have an actual counterexample, now would be a great time to present it.
And I thought only us creationists were supposed to be that way...Ha Ha Ha.
When the shoe fits...
“Explanations are ruled out because they don’t work, they don’t match the evidence or they fail upon experimental testing” Amen! brother. That is why I still don’t have faith in the theory of macro-evolution. The theory of evolution and unintelligent chance design origin is one of the largest all encompassing theories and yet still has produced no useful technology that wouldn’t have come about without it. It is a barren theory! It doesn’t produce technology because it is either false or not understood correctly by its adherents. What useful technology or advancement is a direct result of this age old theory? You got nothing buddy! And don’t make me list the ungodly atrocities committed by those who’ve tried to practice their evolution.