I'm so sick of hearing people whine about the fact that creationism is not taught alongside evolution in science classes.

Max Lossen, in "Creationism is more scientific than others" (SN 10/21) stated that "One definition (of science) I found is it's the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena." He then proceeds to argue for creationism as a science.

However, this ignores a key tenet of his definition: "experimental investigation" and, along with many other scientists, I would like to add that a scientific theory must, through experimental investigation, be falsifiable.

Scientific theory without experimental investigation into the falsifiability of its hypotheses is faith.

Creationism, unlike evolution, cannot be falsified through experimental investigation. Therefore, if creationism is to be taught in schools, it should be taught in philosophy courses where all the other phenomena that cannot be subjected to empirical falsification reside.

Now that the difference between science and faith (i.e., evolution and creationism), is understood, let us turn to another issue that is almost entirely ignored in this debate. Evolution can explain how life evolved, how a cell became a fish and an ape became a man.

However, as of yet, it cannot explain the origins of the universe, matter, energy, etc. So, at these extremes, if one chooses, a god or some other all-powerful being such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (see www.venganza.org) can be reasonably invoked as the root cause of existence, as an article of faith.

Yes, we can believe in evolution and a god at the same time, but one belongs in the science classroom and one belongs in the philosophy classroom.

Anthony Boyce
psychology graduate student