This question is specific to the United States, although it has some relevance to other countries that have a constitutional objective of separation of church and state.

Initially, Creationism developed as a response by a minority of Christians to the Theory of Evolution. Its advocates attempted to have Creationism taught, in US schools, in science classes as a valid alternative to evolution. The courts blocked this attempt, on the grounds that Creationism is a topic of religion and to teach it in science classes would breach the separation of church and state.

Creationism evolved, with a new name "Creation Science" to suggest that it was now a science. However, the courts continued to maintain that it was a topic of religion, not science. That is to say that there is no reason not to teach Creationism or Creation Science in a religious context, but this must be separate from the normal school curriculum.

The continuing popularity of Creationism in the US indicates that it is in reality a theistic social-political movement, partly driven by concerns over the societal consequences of disbelief in a creator, not a scientific movement. In 1999, the "Wedge Document" prepared by the creationist Discovery Institute was leaked to the Internet and displayed on the following sites:

see link " The Wedge Strategy" & " The "Wedge Documents"

After initially denying it, the Institute confirmed the document's authenticity. The document begins by stating, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." It goes on to say that the Institute seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies, with a governing goal to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. The achievement of these goals is to be facilitated by including Creation Science or Intelligent Design hypotheses in the school curriculum.

Creation science

Legal definition, creation science found not to be science

The various state laws prohibiting teaching of evolution were challenged in 1968 at Epperson v. Arkansas which ruled that they were unconstitutional, and the creationist movement turned to promoting creation science as equal to evolutionary theory. In 1981 Arkansas Act 590 mandated that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution.^[20]Creation science was defined as follows:

"Creation science means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

:# Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.

1. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism.
2. Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals.
3. Separate ancestry for man and apes.
4. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood.
5. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."

This legislation was examined in McLean v. Arkansas, and the ruling handed down on January 5, 1982, concluded that "creation-science" as defined above "is simply not science". The judgement defined the essential characteristics of science as being:

:# It is guided by natural law;

1. It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
2. It is testable against the empirical world;
3. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
4. It is falsifiable.

and found that "creation science" failed to meet these essential characteristics for the following reasons.

:# Sudden creation "from nothing" is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law, is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable.

1. "insufficiency of mutation and natural selection" is an incomplete negative generalization.
2. "changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds" fails as there is no scientific definition of "kinds", the assertion appears to be an effort to establish outer limits of changes within species but there is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by natural law.
3. "separate ancestry of man and apes" is a bald assertion which explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory.
4. Catastrophism and any kind of Genesis Flood depend upon supernatural intervention, and cannot be explained by natural law.
5. "Relatively recent inception" has no scientific meaning, is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative.
6. No recognized scientific journal has published an article espousing the creation science theory as described in the Act, and though some witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" and so had not accepted the arguments, no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused, and suggestions of censorship were not credible.
7. A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist, and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory.
8. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation. The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in [the Act] Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it.

The Act took a two-model approach to teaching identical to the approach put forward by the Institute for Creation Research, which assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Creationists take this to mean that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism. The judgement found this to be simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose.

The judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact", and that it violated the First amendment's Establishment Clause.^[21]

The decision was not appealed to a higher court, but had a powerful influence on subsequent rulings.^[22] In 1982 Louisiana passed a "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction" Act, and the Supreme Court found that it also violated the First amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987.^[23]

for more info, see also link \"Skeptic's: Intelligent Design\" & \"Wikipedia; Intelligent Design\"

• Does TD Jakes have a child outside of his marriage?
• What to do when you don't know what to do?
• Anong ibig sabihin ng relihiyon?