I found this part interesting:
Quote:

This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:


Of course scientists redefine the term "scientific theory" to their own purposes! They did this so that every theory would go through so much scrutiny that any unfounded idea can't become theory.

A scientific theory has several demands for this purpose, testability is one of them. Can you test parts of Creationism? No. Can you test parts of evolution? Stick some bacteria in a petri dish, make their environment hostile. Examine them for several generations and make any note to any genetic change from generation to generation.

And then there is the issue of evidence. Evolution has evidence. You can see the progression in the fossils. The problem with Creationism, is we can't prove a negative, so we can't say that God didn't create the world 6000 years ago. But there is not enough hard evidence to conclude that he did. Evolution may be incomplete, but there is more evidence pointing to that conclusion, than there is for Creationism.

And one last point, unrelated to this article, if we do teach creationism in a school, why do we teach Judeo-Christian creationism? I believe that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Are they going to teach that view point in a science class?

I was once Anonymous_Alcoholic.

Code Breakpoint;