[hoosierskypilot]

"Please provide examples of scientific methods that can be used to test the possibility of creationism.."

I don't know the dynamics involved in this debate in Georgia, except the excerpt in the article posted.

But I don't think anyone is talking about scrutinizing Creationism according to scientific principles.

It seems they (the parents) simply want Creationism presented as an altenative. Or maybe I missed the gist of the entire post.

Without being in Georgia (and, sometimes, I wish I were), I'm guessing the parents would like evolution to be presented as an hypothesis, which it is.

Maybe, in the minds of many, Creation is not scientific. But, since evolution cannot be proven scientifically, which confines it forever to the "theoretical" arena, then it needs to be presented as theory.

In the classroom, then, both "theories" are on a level playing field.

But, then again, I may have missed the point of the post.

[Dimensio]

But, since evolution cannot be proven scientifically, which confines it forever to the "theoretical" arena, then it needs to be presented as theory.

Evolution is change in alelle frequency over time. It's a definition of an observed phenomenon, kind of like rain. That much is 'fact'. It's sometimes used as a catch-all term for the various theories regarding origin of species (which relies on the process called evolution as a driving mechanism). That much is theory. I don't see anyone having a problem with calling it theory. The problem is when people insist that it be restated over and over again that "evolution is theory, not fact" but they never make demands of any other theories such as gravity or relativity.

It seems they (the parents) simply want Creationism presented as an altenative

Except that Creationism isn't science, so it should not be presented as such. It's like teaching auto mechanics as an "alternative" version of mathematics to calculus.

I'm guessing the parents would like evolution to be presented as an hypothesis, which it is.

Um, no, it's a theory. There's a difference.

In the classroom, then, both "theories" are on a level playing field.

What predictions are made by "Creation" theory. How can these predictions be tested. What observations should result from these tests. What observations would falsify Creation theory?

[truenospinzone]

My point is that if these parents were asking for a separate class to be taught, centering on various creation myths, or even on Christianity specifically, then they might warrant a serious discussion. What they are asking instead is that creationism be taught alongside evolution in science classes. Since creationism is not a science, and cannot be measured scientifically, it has no place there.

If Creationists were simply asking that science teachers throw in a simple, "This may not be the way it happened, and if you'd like to know what many religions, including but not limited to Christianity, think about how and why we're here, well, go to church this weekend.", they'd be well within their rights, I think. But to demand that a non-science be presented in a science class is absolutely ridiculous.