Do you believe Creationism should be taught in public schools

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Yes, in a sense. It should be also suggested along with evolution, perhaps in the form that intelligent design was possible, although so was evolution.

[Enduro]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

Alright prove it's a fact. Where you there? Did you see the beginning of time?

I wasn't there, but neither was a floating sky god. If you would like proof of evolution, look up a book. Check out some biology textbooks or read the Smithsonian's Natural History page. Personally, I care very little of what people believe about Evolution, just as long as it doesn't affect education or my personal well being.

Oh, I hadn't realized that you had spoken to "floating sky God" and asked Him if He was there. I also hadn't realized He told you He wasn't there. I also hadn't realized that books written by humans who were not also there held all the answers. I also hadn't realized that the all knowing lower case g god that is the Smithsonian was at the beginning of time and told you how the world began, despite being younger than America.
By the way, I have read many biology textbooks. Those that support Creationism, though I still recognize that they could be just as wrong as your Evolutionist textbooks.

[Young Conservative]

By the way, someone who goes to my church is a structural biologist about to finish his phD at Stanford and is an ardent young-Earth creationist.  I'd think he's be surprised to hear from an attorney that he doesn't understand biology.   You can learn how systems work together in the present without even broaching questions of the past, so I think your putting the theory of evolution on a pedestal says more about your ideological commitment to naturalism and desire to imbue it in others than anything else.

To say you can't understand biology without evolution is like saying you can't understand mechanics without special relativity (to explain why gravity acts how it does).  Evolution is an explanatory mechanism, yes, but so much can be studied within biology without ever having to reference evolution.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you learn biology as a list of discrete concepts, you're getting a bad education.  You should be understanding biology as a series of systems that work together.  You have to learn evolution to understand biological systems.  I don't know how many days you need to spend learning it, but it's a central theory.  If you don't understand evolution, you can't truly understand anything in biology. 

It is true that biology does work as systems working together, but a lot of it does boil down to understanding and memorizing different processes, such as all the intermediates in cellular respiration or photosynthesis, or the different organelles in a cell, etc. You can have broad knowledge of how body systems work, how cells function, etc. without knowing evolution, so I think your definition of what "understanding anything in biology" means is pretty darn arbitrary.   

No, you can't.  Evolution is such a basic element in biology that you can't understand anything without it.  You can memorize what is in a cell or what a nucleus, but you will never understand the "why" of anything.  If you don't understand the "why," you really have a superficial understanding of the subject.  Without understanding systems and theories and how things tie together, it's just a series of facts.

And how many people actually need more than that series of facts?  You're making an argument that would be akin to arguing that you need to know how internal combustion engines (or batteries) work to be able to drive a car.  Heck you don't even need to know that to be an auto mechanic.  You would to be an automotive engineer, but even in the biological equivalent of a genetic engineer, you don't need to know how evolution works to splice a genome.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in evolution, but the idea that it is essential to be able to work in the biological sciences is ludicrous.  You do need to know genetics, but while evolution depends upon genetics, the reverse is not true.  Our understanding of genetics works equally well regardless of whether one believes in the standard scientific cosmology (Big Bang+Evolution) or in Young Earth Creationism.

[bedstuy]

If you learn biology as a list of discrete concepts, you're getting a bad education.  You should be understanding biology as a series of systems that work together.  You have to learn evolution to understand biological systems.  I don't know how many days you need to spend learning it, but it's a central theory.  If you don't understand evolution, you can't truly understand anything in biology. 

It is true that biology does work as systems working together, but a lot of it does boil down to understanding and memorizing different processes, such as all the intermediates in cellular respiration or photosynthesis, or the different organelles in a cell, etc. You can have broad knowledge of how body systems work, how cells function, etc. without knowing evolution, so I think your definition of what "understanding anything in biology" means is pretty darn arbitrary.   

No, you can't.  Evolution is such a basic element in biology that you can't understand anything without it.  You can memorize what is in a cell or what a nucleus, but you will never understand the "why" of anything.  If you don't understand the "why," you really have a superficial understanding of the subject.  Without understanding systems and theories and how things tie together, it's just a series of facts.

And how many people actually need more than that series of facts?  You're making an argument that would be akin to arguing that you need to know how internal combustion engines (or batteries) work to be able to drive a car.  Heck you don't even need to know that to be an auto mechanic.  You would to be an automotive engineer, but even in the biological equivalent of a genetic engineer, you don't need to know how evolution works to splice a genome.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in evolution, but the idea that it is essential to be able to work in the biological sciences is ludicrous.  You do need to know genetics, but while evolution depends upon genetics, the reverse is not true.  Our understanding of genetics works equally well regardless of whether one believes in the standard scientific cosmology (Big Bang+Evolution) or in Young Earth Creationism.

What a terrible analogy.  Biology isn't some practical subject like driving a car or digging a ditch.  It's an academic subject.  Academics is not memorizing a random series of facts that aren't tied together.  You need to understand why things are the way they are to actually make sense of the facts and have any true knowledge. 

There is no debate that evolution is one of the central ways to explain biology, to make sense of the facts and understand them.  It would be educational malpractice to remove evolution from biology.  Stop playing stupid Ernest, it's annoying and pointless.

[Young Conservative]

What a terrible analogy.  Biology isn't some practical subject like driving a car or digging a ditch.  It's an academic subject.  Academics is not memorizing a random series of facts that aren't tied together.  You need to understand why things are the way they are to actually make sense of the facts and have any true knowledge. 

There is no debate that evolution is one of the central ways to explain biology, to make sense of the facts and understand them.  It would be educational malpractice to remove evolution from biology.  Stop playing stupid Ernest, it's annoying and pointless.
[/quote]
Evolution is NOT necessary to understand biology. Belief in evolution is not necessary to understand biology. Period. From my experience in AP biology, I can easily understand and excel in the class despite a lack in belief of evolution. Tell me, what do you need to know about evolution to understand how cells work? (Not what you believe their origin is but how they work)? How traits are passed down? The properties of water and macromolecules?  Thermodynamics? This is what we have covered in the class so far. I have not needed evolution to understand any of it despite there it being mentioned as an irrelevant 'red herring' in the sea of information. The educational directors adore evolution and press it down our throats. It is not wonder people think you can't be an educated creationist...there is a mass effort at indoctrinating our youth into thinking that. We need to encourage alternative ideas. It is the only way we will prosper. If we don't provide creationist point of view and evidence, we aren't giving them an unbiased education.

[courts]

why are you posting this on this site

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

As a student of biology I mist tell you: the entire academic discipline is made into nonsense if evolution is thrown out the window. One can 'understand' the subject without it, but only at an entirely superficial level that lacks scientific grounding.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As a student of biology I mist tell you: the entire academic discipline is made into nonsense if evolution is thrown out the window. One can 'understand' the subject without it, but only at an entirely superficial level that lacks scientific grounding.

How so?  What is there in biology that you think is best explained by evolution that cannot be equally well be explained via genetics alone?  I don't see anything, tho I will admit my science studies were more in the field of the physical sciences than in the biological ones.  Take for example cladistics.  While evolution is used as the standard theory to explain why the genetic relationships between species exist, I don't see any particular loss in cladistics' value to understand the world we live in if the cause of those relationships is not specified.

[bedstuy]

As a student of biology I mist tell you: the entire academic discipline is made into nonsense if evolution is thrown out the window. One can 'understand' the subject without it, but only at an entirely superficial level that lacks scientific grounding.

How so?  What is there in biology that you think is best explained by evolution that cannot be equally well be explained via genetics alone?  I don't see anything, tho I will admit my science studies were more in the field of the physical sciences than in the biological ones.  Take for example cladistics.  While evolution is used as the standard theory to explain why the genetic relationships between species exist, I don't see any particular loss in cladistics' value to understand the world we live in if the cause of those relationships is not specified.

No.  Just no.  Give me a break. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  Just no.  Give me a break. 

It appears we have different views on what constitutes science.  For me, science is the subset of natural philosophy that creates testable propositions.  Unlike the Big Bang theory, which has produced testable propositions such as the existence of background microwave radiation, evolution has to date been a descriptive theory rather than a predictive one. As such it is a branch of natural philosophy, but not of science.  Its value lies chiefly in explaining how in a deistic/atheist worldview, the genetic diversity we observe could have arisen in a cosmology that has existed long enough for evolution to work. Genetics is testable and thus is science and is an essential basis for understanding biology.

Evolution also is largely compatible with theistic worldviews. The primary exception is with theologies such as Young Earth Creationism which don't allow for there to have been enuf time for evolution to work.  I suppose that's why YECers waste so much of their time trying to "disprove" evolution and why in response so much effort is spent defending the theory.  Rather a waste of time since even without the natural philosophy of evolution, there is considerable science that contradicts YEC. Furthermore, since evolution is not a testable science, it is not capable of being disproved.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Yes, beacuse students should always learn both sides of the argument and come to their first win conclusion.

[bedstuy]

No.  Just no.  Give me a break. 

It appears we have different views on what constitutes science.  For me, science is the subset of natural philosophy that creates testable propositions.  Unlike the Big Bang theory, which has produced testable propositions such as the existence of background microwave radiation, evolution has to date been a descriptive theory rather than a predictive one. As such it is a branch of natural philosophy, but not of science.  Its value lies chiefly in explaining how in a deistic/atheist worldview, the genetic diversity we observe could have arisen in a cosmology that has existed long enough for evolution to work. Genetics is testable and thus is science and is an essential basis for understanding biology.

Evolution also is largely compatible with theistic worldviews. The primary exception is with theologies such as Young Earth Creationism which don't allow for there to have been enuf time for evolution to work.  I suppose that's why YECers waste so much of their time trying to "disprove" evolution and why in response so much effort is spent defending the theory.  Rather a waste of time since even without the natural philosophy of evolution, there is considerable science that contradicts YEC. Furthermore, since evolution is not a testable science, it is not capable of being disproved.

OK.  I have the understanding of what science and biology are that is commonly accepted by everyone.  You have your own personal definition of science that isn't even attributable to any actual facts.  If we're talking about what should be taught in a biology class, you personal definition that randomly excludes established areas of science based on your pedantic whims isn't very important.  Evolution is a part of biology, and is taught as a central theory in every college in the world.  We should prepare students for the world, not to agree with your strange, pedantic beliefs. 

Of course evolution produces testable propositions.  What the hell are you talking about?  We have things like experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, those show evolution in progress and we base tons of research in medicine on the fact of evolution.  Do you think we should stop medicine from worrying about antibiotic resistance because it's based on evolution?

Or, what about the following.  Hypothesis: The fossil record will show living things have a common ancestor.  This has been proven and it has huge explanatory power for the world.  The world we live in only makes sense if you believe in evolution.  Like, how could you possibly understand bio-geography without evolution?  In that sense, we don't need to bother proving or testing evolution, it's proven to have occurred.  But, it's an unspoken assumption in biology that underlies all other research, all research keeps proving it more.

Your total ignorance on this stuff is really on display with that last sentence.  "Furthermore, since evolution is not a testable science, it is not capable of being disproved." 

WTF are you talking about!?  If you found human fossils 500 mya, that would disprove evolution.  No?

[RI]

Evangelical Protestantism is intellectually bankrupt. YEC nonsense should be nowhere near public schools or any serious institution of learning.

[TJ in Oregon]

Human evolution is falsifiable. As Bedstuy points out we could potentially find fossils that would contradict it.

But Bedstuy, when you say that you have the commonly accepted understanding of what science is, what is it? I am not entirely convinced that there is a commonly accepted definition. I would mostly agree with Ernest's (though I also think it includes  a certain degree of deductive reasoning from falsifiable hypotheses) but do think it is misapplied here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course evolution produces testable propositions.  What the hell are you talking about?  We have things like experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, those show evolution in progress and we base tons of research in medicine on the fact of evolution.  Do you think we should stop medicine from worrying about antibiotic resistance because it's based on evolution?

I'd classify that as genetics, not evolution. The central thesis of evolution that makes it controversial to creationists is not that species adapt to their environment, heck even the Bible has an example of that. Rather it is that new species arise out of old ones.

Or, what about the following.  Hypothesis: The fossil record will show living things have a common ancestor.  This has been proven and it has huge explanatory power for the world.  The world we live in only makes sense if you believe in evolution.  Like, how could you possibly understand bio-geography without evolution?  In that sense, we don't need to bother proving or testing evolution, it's proven to have occurred.  But, it's an unspoken assumption in biology that underlies all other research, all research keeps proving it more.

Biogeography is easily explained by creationism. Indeed, as a descriptive but unprovable theory, creationism excels at providing explanations. In the specific example you just pointed out, the creator chose to have creatures with similar genetics be close to one another.

Your total ignorance on this stuff is really on display with that last sentence.  "Furthermore, since evolution is not a testable science, it is not capable of being disproved." 

WTF are you talking about!?  If you found human fossils 500 mya, that would disprove evolution.  No?

No. Were you or anyone else around 500 mya to see those fossils deposited? Unless we're actually directly observing the creation of fossils and establishing different conditions to observe the results, then no testing is taking place.

Isolated examples of out of time fossils suggests error in measuring the temporal origin of them and thus they would be useless as proof or disprove. Extensive examples would indicate our theories of geologic history are so out of whack that geology couldn't be used to say anything about biology.  Evolution is dependent upon certain untestable assumptions such as physical processes operating in prehistory the same as they have in historical times and that nature acts without the intervention of an outside force upon it. Those aren't unreasonable assumptions, indeed I believe in them myself, but I also recognize them as axioms. When it comes to explaining the biological world as it is, there are other axioms that work.

[bedstuy]

Of course evolution produces testable propositions.  What the hell are you talking about?  We have things like experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, those show evolution in progress and we base tons of research in medicine on the fact of evolution.  Do you think we should stop medicine from worrying about antibiotic resistance because it's based on evolution?

I'd classify that as genetics, not evolution. The central thesis of evolution that makes it controversial to creationists is not that species adapt to their environment, heck even the Bible has an example of that. Rather it is that new species arise out of old ones.

You classify it wrong and you don't know what evolution is.  Evolution is not that "species adapt to their environment."  See, if you don't know what evolution is, you can't really judge whether to teach it in school.  That's probably the problem, you're uneducated on this subject, but you want to have an opinion.  Learn about evolution, it's important to understand.

Or, what about the following.  Hypothesis: The fossil record will show living things have a common ancestor.  This has been proven and it has huge explanatory power for the world.  The world we live in only makes sense if you believe in evolution.  Like, how could you possibly understand bio-geography without evolution?  In that sense, we don't need to bother proving or testing evolution, it's proven to have occurred.  But, it's an unspoken assumption in biology that underlies all other research, all research keeps proving it more.

Biogeography is easily explained by creationism. Indeed, as a descriptive but unprovable theory, creationism excels at providing explanations. In the specific example you just pointed out, the creator chose to have creatures with similar genetics be close to one another.

That's not a scientific explanation.  You can say that about literally anything.  You could say that magical fairies explain physics, it's not useful or scientific.  Evolution has scientific explanations and real observations like Bergman's rule.  Again, evolution is a proven fact, it is the only possible conclusion based on the evidence.

Your total ignorance on this stuff is really on display with that last sentence.  "Furthermore, since evolution is not a testable science, it is not capable of being disproved."  

WTF are you talking about!?  If you found human fossils 500 mya, that would disprove evolution.  No?

No. Were you or anyone else around 500 mya to see those fossils deposited? Unless we're actually directly observing the creation of fossils and establishing different conditions to observe the results, then no testing is taking place.

Isolated examples of out of time fossils suggests error in measuring the temporal origin of them and thus they would be useless as proof or disprove. Extensive examples would indicate our theories of geologic history are so out of whack that geology couldn't be used to say anything about biology.  Evolution is dependent upon certain untestable assumptions such as physical processes operating in prehistory the same as they have in historical times and that nature acts without the intervention of an outside force upon it. Those aren't unreasonable assumptions, indeed I believe in them myself, but I also recognize them as axioms. When it comes to explaining the biological world as it is, there are other axioms that work.

That's just your usual meaningless pedantic nonsense, holy cow, just idiotic.  What you're describing is  not a flaw in biology or evolution, that's a flaw in the fact that we can't create a time machine.  We can't go back in time and watch continental drift.  So, you would say plate tectonics is not science?  We can't directly observe stars in the sky because they're too far away.  So, that makes astronomy not science?  Or, for that matter, are you against teaching history that goes beyond your memory because it could have been a total fabrication.  We can't observe George Washington, so let's not teach school kids that speculative theory that he existed?

That's literally what you're saying and it is pure horsesh**t.  

Human evolution is falsifiable. As Bedstuy points out we could potentially find fossils that would contradict it.

But Bedstuy, when you say that you have the commonly accepted understanding of what science is, what is it? I am not entirely convinced that there is a commonly accepted definition. I would mostly agree with Ernest's (though I also think it includes  a certain degree of deductive reasoning from falsifiable hypotheses) but do think it is misapplied here.

No, I just mean the definition that we all agree on.  Nobody is imposing this restriction on schools that they shouldn't teach anything outside Ernest's pedantic solipsistic definition of science.  

Dictionary.com on biology:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dictionary.com on science:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Maxwell]

Not unless it's part of some sort of religious studies class.

[Maxwell]

found a picture of youngconservative, btw

[NeverAgain]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

Alright prove it's a fact. Where you there? Did you see the beginning of time?

I wasn't there, but neither was a floating sky god. If you would like proof of evolution, look up a book. Check out some biology textbooks or read the Smithsonian's Natural History page. Personally, I care very little of what people believe about Evolution, just as long as it doesn't affect education or my personal well being.

Oh, I hadn't realized that you had spoken to "floating sky God" and asked Him if He was there. I also hadn't realized He told you He wasn't there. I also hadn't realized that books written by humans who were not also there held all the answers. I also hadn't realized that the all knowing lower case g god that is the Smithsonian was at the beginning of time and told you how the world began, despite being younger than America.
By the way, I have read many biology textbooks. Those that support Creationism, though I still recognize that they could be just as wrong as your Evolutionist textbooks.

First off, I haven't spoken to the "floating sky god" because he doesn't exist. Secondly, books written by people who weren't there is really the basis of literature, I mean was any Modern Historian alive for Julius Caesar? We have a incredible amount of proof of The Big Bang, Lucy, and the lead-up to who we are today. The difference between Evolution and Creationism is facts pure and simple. I would be extremely willing to accept Creationism/God in my heart if they had facts our their side. I wish they had the same attitude, but today we face polarization and the reluctance to look at the other side. It's sad really.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As long as we're going to bring up appeals to authority.

mirriam-webster.com on science, in particular the third definition:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My emphasis on the testability of science as what differentiates it from the rest of natural philosophy is hardly unique to me.  Just as the insistence of some that their viewpoint is the only possible one without being able to explain why that is the case is hardly unique to this particular topic.

The analogy some are making here with history strikes me as a bad one.  With history we have a chain of human experience which allows us to know what happened within the historical past despite no one alive today having directly experienced that.

[bedstuy]

As long as we're going to bring up appeals to authority.

mirriam-webster.com on science, in particular the third definition:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My emphasis on the testability of science as what differentiates it from the rest of natural philosophy is hardly unique to me.  Just as the insistence of some that their viewpoint is the only possible one without being able to explain why that is the case is hardly unique to this particular topic.

The analogy some are making here with history strikes me as a bad one.  With history we have a chain of human experience which allows us to know what happened within the historical past despite no one alive today having directly experienced that.

That kind of epistemology makes no sense whatsoever. 
1.  You can absolutely see evolution happen in experiments.  This is agreed upon fact.  You can also see evolution in domestic animals.  There is no debate on this fact in the scientific community.  What is your response to this?

2.  It's completely arbitrary to say observations like fossil evidence are unscientific.  It's just semantics I guess.  Yes, you can't create an earth and run experiments on billions of years of evolution there. 

Now, this is the point of arguing with you, where you reveal that you actually agree with me, you just wanted to be verbose in a pedantic annoying way.  So, you really don't think we should teach evolution in biology because it's technically "natural philosophy."  Really?  Are you serious?

This distinction makes no sense in practice, whatever it is.  Evolution is a completely necessary to understanding biology.  It's falsifiable and it has been well-established and central in the academic study of biology since the 19th century.  You need to understand evolution to make sense of the different topics and facts in biology.  You can learn facts all you want, but it's not real learning without synthesizing those facts into a theory.

And, finally, you don't understand evolution.  You're an ignorant person from a sheltered background I guess.  That's fine, but uneducated people shouldn't decide what is taught in academics.  No? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let's just say I have a very strong skepticism of ivory tower mentalities that dismiss practical results as being mere window dressing on the "really important" abstract theories  I say that as someone who has been in that ivory tower, albeit in the mathematical sciences and not the biological sciences.

Evolution is a good theory.  I believe it to be true.  But I have yet to see one practical result that depends upon it being true.  Nor do I see where it is more useful as an organizing principle for biology than genetics alone.  Whether our current genetic diversity occurred by chaotic processes alone (aka natural selection), orderly processes alone (like the breeding that produced domesticated plants and animals from wild ones), or some mixture of the two doesn't affect the practical results one can obtain from biology.

The only practical effect the theory of evolution has had that I can see is that it helped spur the acceptance of genetics.

[bedstuy]

Let's just say I have a very strong skepticism of ivory tower mentalities that dismiss practical results as being mere window dressing on the "really important" abstract theories  I say that as someone who has been in that ivory tower, albeit in the mathematical sciences and not the biological sciences.

Evolution is a good theory.  I believe it to be true.  But I have yet to see one practical result that depends upon it being true.  Nor do I see where it is more useful as an organizing principle for biology than genetics alone.  Whether our current genetic diversity occurred by chaotic processes alone (aka natural selection), orderly processes alone (like the breeding that produced domesticated plants and animals from wild ones), or some mixture of the two doesn't affect the practical results one can obtain from biology.

The only practical effect the theory of evolution has had that I can see is that it helped spur the acceptance of genetics.

Your distinction between genetics and evolution betrays a deep, deep ignorance of both.  Genetics is not a theory that explains biodiversity.  Genetics is a topic.  What is the alternative theory to evolution?

As for your experimental issue, you just don't understand evolution.  We see evolution in the lab, fruit fly experiments, bacteria experiments.  Do you deny this fact?

As for your point about practicality, wrong, wrong, wrong.  Come on.  Bacteria resistance to antibiotics.  If you don't believe in evolution, obviously you would think antibiotic resistance is impossible.  That would be tragic. Plenty of other clear examples, but you're missing the bigger point.  Evolution is the central framework of biology.  It's a reference point and a key to understanding biology.  A theoretical understanding of the big picture is key in understanding the small picture and doing science.

[TJ in Oregon]

Human evolution is falsifiable. As Bedstuy points out we could potentially find fossils that would contradict it.

But Bedstuy, when you say that you have the commonly accepted understanding of what science is, what is it? I am not entirely convinced that there is a commonly accepted definition. I would mostly agree with Ernest's (though I also think it includes  a certain degree of deductive reasoning from falsifiable hypotheses) but do think it is misapplied here.

No, I just mean the definition that we all agree on.  Nobody is imposing this restriction on schools that they shouldn't teach anything outside Ernest's pedantic solipsistic definition of science.  

Dictionary.com on biology:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dictionary.com on science:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I won't quite say the dictionary definition is wrong, but it's missing some key things that are important to the discussion. For instance, with those requirements, one could very easily argue that creationism is science. The only hitch would be the experimentation clause of #2, and if one requires that clause specifically then one must also say that the descent of man by evolution is not science. What's missing here is falsifiability. Without that criterion, there really isn't a good reason to teach evolution and not teach creationism as science in public schools.

When I said I'm not sure we actually have a clearly agreed upon definition of science, what I meant was whether or not deductive reasoning is included. The scientific method is structured to foster inductive reasoning, which pretty much everyone agrees is science. What is less clear is whether or not we can take those conclusions and synthesize other ideas from them and still have that be considered science if the final conclusions are not testable. The majority opinion seems to be yes, but that isn't really settled. The crux of Ernest's argument is that, no, we can't take untestable deductive claims and call them science. I disagree with him. I think evolutionary theories in general are falsifiable since, as you stated, we could find evidence in the course of fossil excavation that would contradict them.