What if creationism did get into the science class

Okay,
My user name has changed, due to my password not working properly.Evolution is science based. It is based on evidence. What evidence must be considered before basing anything upon it. Physical, observable, or empirical. We have plenty of physical evidence to support[notice I did not say prove] the thoery of evolution. Not all evidence has to come from controlled experiments. Just becuase it does not come from controlled experiments does this mean that we should invalidate it.Take for example, the models of the atom or the cell membrane. We accepted those as theories and worked with them until we had the technology to test those theories and in both cases, we have had to make major revisions to the earlier models.Just becuase something has not been demonstrated, do we dismiss it? The world was revolutionized with the Thoery of Relativity which has only been proven due to Hubble. Did we dismiss it becase there was no proof. Absoulutly not. I believe in time there will be more data, and I am sure we will have to revise the Theory of Evolution.Creationism is not science. To have a creation that implies a Creator. And if we are talking about a Creator we have encroached the Magesterium of Science with the Magesterium of Religion. Not good. Science does not deny nor prove the existence of the Creator, this is not the question it is supposed to answer, that lies with the Magesterium of Religion. Science and Religion are two different fields of teaching or Magesterium.A theory need only to be theoretically testable, until that technology is reached. You only have to say how you would theoretically test it, that is what Einstien did when he proposed his Theory of Relativity. If you cannot test it, it is not a part of the Magesterium of Science.There is a great book that I was privately assigned by my biology professor to read, it is Stephan Gould's Rock of Ages. Goes in to more depth dealing with the Magesterium of different fields.True, glad you liked the last conclusion. And hey nice article. I did enjoy the website. Sorry in so late in posting.Edit by adminnemooseus: Spaces added, to separate paragraphs, to improve readability[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-13-2002]

MACROEVOLUTION - Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of new taxonomic groups, evolutioinary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extiniction.MICROEVOLUTION - A change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation.Macroevolution is dealing with evolution on a grand scale, with all these factors listed. It is dealing with many populations at one time.
Microevolution begins when you begin to consider one population and do not consider the rest. This is where the line is drawn.DEFINITIONS TAKEN OUT OF BIOLOGY SIXTH EDITION BY CAMPBELL AND REECE

I really cannot answer that question very well. I have only begun to go over their website.Allow me a few more days, and then I will be happy to answer your question, I do not want to make a unfair opnion about something, I am not very aware of yet.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day