Data4 said:
Creationists just want Intelligent design presented as another possibility along with evolution.
Which would be fine, if the theories on intelligent design had any explanatory or predictive aspects to them that can be tested with fossil findings or matched to the models we have describing biological mechanisms as we understand them. They don't, so let's stop pretending the two theories are of equal scientific value already. The point "We're pretty far from absolute scientific proof for evolution, so stop pretending it is fact" is a valid one, of course, and while an argument can be made for some kind of intelligence having guided the creation of life on earth, there is no coherent non-evolution ID theory (that I'm aware of) that even comes close to providing a framework to explain the variety of species & fossils that exist or have existed in the past.
So, in short, I'm not against explicitly stating in schools (and even in science) that the mechanisms of evolution as mainstream science describes them are not fully understood or proven, I'm not even against incorporating the possibility of an intelligent entity meddling with the way life has evolved in high school biology, but I am firmly against presenting pure creationism as an alternative scientific theory of equal merit, because the only reason for viewing it like that is a religious one.
Religion should deal with faith and absolute truths (and faith in that truth). Science should deal with models that describe the world we observe as accurately as possible. Even basic laws of physics should be regarded with suspicion. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics shouldn't be viewed as absolute, universal truth, they should be viewed as a model that seems to match everything we observe. Incorporating thermodynamical considerations into other models (ranging from optics to black hole physics) makes it a whole lot easier to get a model going that matches your measurements, which tempts people to view it as absolute truth. While it may be absolute truth for our universe, in the realm of science these laws have one meaning and one meaning alone: a model that matches other stuff we observe & subsequent models that are being drawn up really, really well.
Of course, I'm not comparing evolution to thermodynamics; the models for evolution can never be completely matched to observations as the measurement data we have is incomplete and there are about a zillion factors that have affected the exact progression of life on Earth, but in this respect it still offers a bunch more than pure creationism.
I think the above text, which is lengthy for my standards, lays bare a problem that some people (on both camps) have with evolution: they regard it as a "why" theory, while it shouldn't be viewed as anything more than a "how" theory. To continue my horrible analogy, the same thing can be applied to thermodynamics. You could view the First Law (energy conservation) as a universal truth, or you could view it as something that seems to apply to every known model & measurement. I'm all for doing the second, keep your filthy truths out of my science already.
In other words: science just provides a description of the "how", leaving the "why" for religion. People who claim science should provide the "why" are just plain wrong.
