> These are very good points. First off, though, the "just a theory" is not a phrase you should be caught using. There's not such thing as "just a theory". What most people think "theory" means is actually a hypothesis.
> We still shouldn't teach evolution as fact. It is not fact, and there are still a few problems with it. We should teach several different beliefs of how Earth and sentient beings and fish and such came about, and not call any of them fact.
>
> -Dr. Morris Cecil "Oh, and the thing about the Pope, that's just his interpretation of it" Glalet, Th.D.

1) What do you mean by teaching something as fact? If by "fact" you mean something we know with 100% Cartesian certianty, then I can't think of anything that can be taught as such. If, however, you are talking about a theory that best explains the available data, then evolution fits the definition. (Read Wolfspirit's post)

Some other examples of "theories" that fit the second definition but not the first:

Biogenesis (Life only comes from life; it doesn't spontaneously appear from inorganic material)

Gravity (Einstein's General Relativity)

Atomic Theory (The smallest building block of an element is the atom)

The reason these theories are taught as "true" without any competing viewpoint is that in each case, there is no scientific theory that explains the data nearly as well. Teaching that light travels through the "ether" (as was believed until the 20th century) instead of through the electromagnetic field would be a waste of time, not because one has been "proven" true and the other impossible, but because one describes a broader range of phemomena with greater accuracy. That's as close as one can get to "truth" in science.

2) The definition of a "scientific question" is something that, at least in principle, can be observed and measured. Therefore, "What is the mass of the sun?" as well as "How many cheesburgers can Spider-Boy eat?" are scientific questions, while "What does the inside of a black hole look like? (No information can escape the event horizon, therefore it is unobservable)" and "Is there a God?" are not. (Note that the adjective "unscientific" does not mean "frivoulous.")
Creationism, which requires the existence of God, is therefore not a scientific theory and should be presented as a religious alternative to the accepted scientific theory, if at all.

3) Even as a theist, I have a problem with ANY theory that needs God to explain a scientific phemomenon. The fact is, the universe seems to be set up with definite, knowable laws. For every theory held by modern science, there is no need to stick God (or magic, or anything unscientific) in to compensate for the unexplained. Creationism seems to be contrary to the way god structured the universe.

Bal "My 2 cents" anthalus