What theologians fail to realize when they propose theology as science is how science works. Science is not designed to discover "Truth", thus why facts are apt to change with information gathered, and many do, but this small thorn in the side is grossly overlooked by apologists who want theological sciences. The reality is that by saying "X is by Him." they are submitting something to be determined by peer review and discussion and ultimately if found false disprove their own version of the deity since the interconnected nature of the proposition blows always the way back up the chain just like old astrological charting with the Earth in the center of the universe is all wrong, every bit of it, no matter how it is laid out and regardless of whether it actually is or is not that way because of the original doctrine being completely wrong.
Science and Theology cannot mix. One seeks "Truth" while the other seeks "fact" or observerable information for use and utilization.
Here I am using "Premises" to include Evidence and what has discovered about this evidence by observation/testing.
Scientific Reasoning is entirely Inductive:
Premises are discovered and individually verified.
Premises are joined by verified Relationships to Inductively derive the Conclusion.
If the Premises do not fit the Conclusion, the Conclusion is Faulty and is replaced by a better Conclusion that does fit the Premises.
In the past, some scientists (not many as most scientists are honest) have been found out to have adjusted Premises to fit a Pre-Determined Conclusion.
Those scientists, if living, have been charged with Scientific Fraud and their evidence has been wiped from scientific texts.
If they have died before being discovered, all future texts will have had their evidence removed and it will no longer be taught as scientific evidence. Only exception of this removal has been some embryonic drawings on wood, that were found useful to explain another scientist's verified scientific Theory, so they are no longer used for supporting the drawer's fraudulent concept.
Creationism and Intelligent Design, on the other hand practices Circular Deductive reasoning.
Circular because like Scientific Fraud, the Conclusion ( God Is Involved) is Pre-Determined and all Premises are continually referred back to this Conclusion for their verification.
They are verified only if they support the Conclusion.
If the Evidence does not support the Conclusion, it is adjusted philosophically or revised biologically to make it fit (just as in Scientific Fraud) the Pre-Existing Conclusion.
Conclusion here is that Creationism is Scientific Fraud.
We should never teach Scientific Fraud as being Scientifically Valid in Schools.
Science removes fraud from school classes once it is discovered.
So to Teach Scientific Fraud (Creationism) in Science is not only Unscientific, it is also UNETHICAL!
On Ernest Haeckel's Drawings: Haeckel's ideas were not fraudulent only Haeckel admitted that some drawings were not valid as he did not get that good a look at the subject when making them. Since then, some truth has actually been discovered in his concepts and his concepts were not really Fraudulent after all, since modern Genetics is showing that he was pretty close to the truth.
Comparing the Scientific and Creationist Methods.
I agree that creationism and intelligent design do not follow logical rational, and should therefore not be taught in science classes. If someone managed to provide several models and experiments in which intelligent design was supported, I would support its use as lecture material. Unfortunately, people believe every opinion is valid in science.
I think that scientific frauds/hoaxes, and pseudoscience should be taught in schools as lessons for not jumping the gun and believing everything you hear/see without further research and skepticism. But not as modern day science.
I do agree with the fact that creationism is not a scientific theory and should not be held in that regard until they can provide a means of testing it and some actual evidence. The bible doesn't count because it was written by man and heavily edited over a long period of time. Not sure if it's a hoax per say, but it's not a scientific fact either! So we can only teach it as an unverified personal gnosis that a group of people share in a culture or religion class.
If we teach people about the hoaxes that have been perpetrated, the time periods they were in, and the reasons for why people believed them, then I think we could teach people how to identify and tackle a hoax when they come across one.
Also hoaxes can show how personal beliefs impact one's ability to interpret findings, the effects they can have on society, and that one shouldn't let personal beliefs impact their interpretation of evidence/findings and instead use an unbiased mind when interpreting them.
There's always the other lesson too. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it!" So not only should we remember the great achievements and theories of science, we should also remember the frauds/hoaxes of it, the beliefs that led to them, and the lack of skepticism and other research that people had/did, so that we don't end up repeating it ourselves!
LOL I disagree, evolution is a fraud, it is not scientficially proven, meawhile, the anthropic principle shows that the universe is made for intelligent life and therefore must have been engineered by a intelligent agent. Note that the anthropic principle is scientific and has passed peer-review and every one has agreed to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life.
There is absolutely no evidence to back up the theory of evolution. Evolutionists start with a premise (there is no God) then try to make the evidence fit this premise. Here are a few facts for you
1) Radiometric dating is highly inaccurate. Furthermore, with the exception of C14 dating, the methods involve a lot of guess work. The methods they use are nothing more than assumptions. How can a dating method based on assumptions be valid? It can't. Different methods also produce results that can be off by millions of years. If they were so accurate, they'd agree with each other.
2) The fossil record proves nothing. There are so many gaps, that it can hardly be called anywhere near complete. Evolution relies on transitional fossils. The simple fact is, there are none.
3) As science gains better methods and more knowledge, the theory of evolution keeps looking more improbable. Recent findings show that it is impossible for a life form to add new information to it's DNA. Every change we've seen, without exception involves a lateral or downward shift. There is not one recorded instance of something adding to it's DNA through mutations. It's an impossibility.
4) Now, lets look at the simple cell. Well, not so simple, as it turns out. Some people say this is a God of the gaps argument. I disagree. DNA is a language. It is a written set of instructions that tells the cell what to do, when to do it and also where. At any moment, thousands of operations are going on. A cell has factories. It has generators that spin at thousands of RPMs, producing the energy the cell needs. It has structures throughout the cell that messengers carry packages around on. These messengers have legs, btw. Also, if you remove just one component, of the many thousands in a cell, it will die. These components could not have evolved separately. And even if they did, how did these thousand of genetic micro-machines evolve to work so well together?
It should be obvious to anyone, with two brain cells to click together, that evolution requires a huge leap of faith to swallow, as there is not one scrap of evidence for it.