First, you are stipulating that creationism says organisms can not genetically change over time. This is not entirely true.

The creationist position is basically that genetic changes can occur, even to the point of speciation or possibly even higher order changes, but changes never occur such that one kind of animal becomes another kind.

Now, if you can put some bacteria in a petri and it changes into a frog on it's own, you might be on to something.

Now, just because many fossils look similar is nice and all, but does it really prove anything? Has any human ever actually seen any animal change into another animal at birth or even thousands of generations of births? I want to meet the scientist that saw that happen naturally. Fruit flies multiply like crazy, let them fornicate like mad in laboratory as long as you like, let me know when one turns into a rodent please. You can even nuked them with radiation, change their environment, whatever you like. Oh wait, we are talking about "theory" not "law", I almost forgot that.

Using your logic for "scientific theory" above.

Since humans haven't created life from any non-living materials like carbon material and water and there hasn't been any other proof found that it actually happened that way, then obviously it could not have happen, and thus the any "theory" that includes that life started from some "primordial ooze" is not a theory at all. Since I don't believe it happened that way, and has no proof to support it.

Since humans didn't see some creator create the universe and life, then obviously it could not have happen, and thus the any "theory" that includes a "creator" is not a theory at all. Since I don't believe it happened that way, and has no proof to support it.

Since no humans saw the big bang, then obviously it could not have happened. But the universe is expanding so the big bang must be fact, or maybe the creator just created a expanding universe, wow this theory stuff is confusing, anyway since no one witnessed what really happened it is not really a theory at all.

Does that kind of logic sound familiar to you?

It should, it is exactly the logic you are using.

I am not here to discuss what theories are more plausible.

The discussion of the thread is whether Creationism should be taught as a theory. And yes, I still think it is just as much of a "scientific theory" as any of the other theories listed here.

I think this line from the link I posted before sums up best why some are so against Creationism as a "theory",
"Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science."

What is funny, I would really expect the Creationist to be the ones trying to dismiss Evolution as a theory and not have it taught in schools, but it seems the opposite seems to be true. Although, I am sure there was a time when Creationist did just that. Humans are quite silly really, if you think about it. Humans have always thought they know more than they really know, and I am guessing that will never change.

Until next time, when we meet in a parallel universe,
Later,
Loco