Science means to know. The term is used today in a way to insult revealed knowledge or prima fascia or self-evident truth or truths depending upon the faith or belief system of the individual. Today, the term is used in a way to no longer allow for anything but strict methodological physical testing. It always starts with faith in test results and nothing else. Therefore, if testing won't yield evident results about something, that something remains unproven or untested and unknown scientifically speaking. However, many scientists don't want room for doubt in their system. They don't want any qualification such as the words "scientifically speaking." They want that which science can prove or disprove to be considered unknown, period — no room for belief in the miraculous healing powers evidence by God through Jesus Christ. No, nothing beyond the "knowledge" obtained by human beings at the time by the "scientific" method is known. It can't be.
Well, that's exactly the reason it isn't known by those who push that view and all those whom they persuade. It's the very reason why we haven't all been born into Heaven but rather this place. Doubt and the nothing-but-testing mentality cause scarcity. They cut us off from free bounty. That mentality is an impenetrable wall to all who believe in it. It comes of a hardened, selfish heart.
Now, along come the Scientific Creationists who hold with all sorts of unchristian notions such as war, greed, and bloodlines over spirit lines, who try to prove what isn't provable by any amount of the scientific testing about which the National Academy of Sciences is talking.
Here we have NBC's correspondent Pete Williams stating ("NBC finds 'controversy' in scientists' rebuke of creationism," by David Edwards and Nick Juliano, TheRawStoryJanuary 4, 2008) that the debate is "the issue of intelligent design, the idea that some forms of life are so complex they could not have evolved on their own but are the result of God's design."
That's not the Creation at all. It does not hinge upon relative complexity as evidence. It also has nothing to do with "some forms of life." For the Christian, there is no life (flesh or spiritual) absent God. For the Christian, there is nothing absent God. The simplest thing exists, because God supports its existence. The most complex thing exists for the same reason. It's a whole. The only problem is the introduction of selfish, hypocritical feelings, thoughts, words, and deeds.
The system manifests accordingly. Introduce those things, and you get the corresponding results. Introduce their opposites, and you will get different and vastly superior results. You can even test it in the mundane. That won't get you through the wall though. You really can't begin to penetrate the wall until you really hate yourself — hate the pain and suffering you've caused by being so ignorant, dimwitted, insensitive, and callous, etc. You really have to dwell on what a wretched person you've been. Then you can begin to feel for all the others, including those still in the dark about this. Then you can feel God, because God loves it that you are feeling instead of being a hard whatever.
What needs to happen is for the people (adults and children) to all be allowed to discuss and probe all of the questions. A well-rounded education can't exist unless one is exposed to the concepts of methodological testing as the end-all-be-all philosophy of some. It also can't exist unless there is exposure to Christianity that transcends limitations of such testing.
This whole issue is firing up, because some "scientists" and educators are so paranoid about Mike Huckabee becoming President. He has strong Fundamentalist leanings that hearken back to the Scopes Monkey Trial of July 1925 in Tennessee.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) state that "Teaching creationist ideas in science class confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not,' the committee stated." ("Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution Continues To Grow; Nonscientific Approaches Do Not Belong In Science Classrooms." News from the National Academies. January 3, 2008.) Come on. That's backwards. It's a copout.
You teach the methodology and you teach that you limit your knowledge to the outcome. Then you turn around to say that there are those who don't believe that that methodological system is the only way to knowledge or the only results to trust. Therefore, you open up the science classroom to the philosophy of science that becomes better understood when juxtaposed against something else. All that does is expands the children's minds. You just give then an overview of all the "non-scientific" or even "anti-scientific" philosophies so they will be better educated and more rounded. In other words, religious education (comparative religion) and philosophy belongs in schools right from day one.
Of course, this is exactly what the powers that be do not want. If the common people are thusly educated, they will arrive at conclusions that are not conducive to being the mere wage-slaves of the ultra-rich plutocrats. The "scientists" are being as the sharia Muslims or Israel or certain states in India and other places where teaching about Jesus Christ from the Gospels is so threatening and illegal. If their science is so powerful, why are they so afraid of having all the students hear differing views?
As for those schools calling themselves Christian schools, they ought to teach the full message of Jesus Christ. They should allow for the full range of discussion concerning all the different denominational and non-denominational views as well. They should study history. Until they are doing that, how can they expect the secular schools to teach Christianity in the context of comparative religion and philosophy studies (including the philosophy of "science")?