Creationism in schools: be careful what you ask for, you just might get it

Recently, the news has been all a-tingle in the USA with the president's announcement that he believes Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution in America's science classrooms. I actually think this would be great. However, I don't think proponents of this policy really understand what this would mean.

Remember: science is a discipline based upon the "scientific method." What this means is remarkably simple in principle:

1. observe data
2. seek patterns
3. make conjectures or predictions of future behavior based on the patterns (hypotheses)
4. experiment to test hypotheses
5. adjust hypotheses based on observed results
6. "upgrade" hypothesis to theory if enough time has passed of no conflicting data with hyphothesis
7. intrinsic uncertainty of human capacity and understanding means theories can never be conclusively proven, only disproven.

The most obvious similarity in all of these steps is that observation comes *first*, then followed by hypothesis. A hypothesis that does not explain all of the data is by definition false and must be modified or thrown out. Point #7 is something that creationists consistently misrepresent, saying that something which cannot be proven is false. This is not the case, as can be shown with a simple thought experiment:

The majority of Americans have never been to Africa. If you have not been there, you cannot prove it actually exists. This does not mean that Africa is false, or even a figment of some vast conspiracy's imagination, just that it cannot be proven to exist without more data (i.e. what you see after stepping off of a plane/ship). However, all evidence supports the existence of Africa, even if you haven't been there (TV shows on African wildlife are consistent, people you've met claiming to be from Africa have similar features/languages, and so on).

However, once a hypothesis is proven false (such as "The Earth is flat"), it is no longer valid and must be then dropped from consideration as a scientific hyphothesis.

Following this train of thought, if you examine creationism (under any name) and make predictions and test them experimentally, there are a number of inconsistencies with the hypothesis and evidence that even a high school science class could verify. This would be a wonderful exercise in applied research and an excellent way to teach science to children. Unfortunately, in the process, it would disprove the scientific merit of Creationism (read: prove it false) and shake the foundation of some people's faith at the core. I would hate to shatter faith like that, but I am also confident that most of these people would lift themselves up, dust off, and find that their faith is indeed not based on little details like whether a few words written thousands of years ago (and translated recently) are 100% fact. No, I suspect they would find that their faith is based upon principles such as humility, supporting others in times of trouble, and on doing good works. It may even be based upon such radical ideas as singling out the poor, the imprisoned and the diseased to offer worldly possessions and moral support. It might even be based on a certainty of unconditional salvation that does not need to ignore the world as it truly exists.

Or perhaps, as in the words of Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber: "Nahhhhh!"