by Andrea Nostramo

Created on: June 10, 2009

Defenders of this practice often claim that because Creationism deals with one very important aspect of science - the origins of the Universe - that it falls under the umbrella term of "science" and should be taught alongside Evolution in schools. Other defenders claim that Evolution is a theory - thus its oft-used title "The Theory of Evolution" - in the same vein that Creationism is a theory, and that both sides should be taught within a science curriculum so as to honestly cover every side of the debate regarding how the Universe was created. But both these defenses are erroneous.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "science" as the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Granted, Creationism deals with the origins of the Universe, but it deals with it in a religious context, and is no more scientific a theory than the theory that the tooth fairy created thunderstorms. The fact that the former is a widely held belief and the latter is something I just made up doesn't change the definition of science. Mass belief does not equal truth.

Creationism also does not hold up to the dictionary definition of science. Aside from the fact that its concern is God - a religious not scientific phenomenon - there is also no way to "observe" or "experiment" in order to prove (or disprove) the existence of God or what he did or did not create.

Evolution is different. Those who dismiss evolution as a "theory" have not done their homework. Evolution is only a theory because by definition it takes millions upon millions of years to manifest itself in noticeable ways. No human being could live anywhere near long enough to document evolution as it occurs in real time; but it is accepted as cold hard fact in the scientific community. There is no ongoing debate about whether evolution is true.

There are, however, very specific debates going on right now as we speak regarding small facets of science within the framework of evolution, such as whether Darwin's original sketch of the "tree" of life is accurate or whether it is less of a tree and more of a web. But evolution is not a question among the scientific community. We may not be able to see it happen in real time with our own eyes, but it is very "observable," especially within the last fifty years since the discovery of DNA in 1954. Therefore, it fits under the definition of science.

In order to understand why Creationism should not be taught in a science class (or in school at all) one must recognize that just because Creationism deals with the Universe does not make it a scientific theory. If that were true, one could invent a theory that says unicorns make plants grow. Should we teach that in botany courses? Of course not. The latter sounds ridiculous to a rational mind and would never get taught in schools. Why should Creationism be different simply because it has followers? Creationism no more belongs in schools than Evolution belongs in church.

Learn more about this author, Andrea Nostramo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.