I would like to remind the board of the words of Justice Powell in his concurrence to the Edwards v. Some evolutionists may suggest to you that Creation theory must be censored from science classrooms because it does not satisfy the definition of science. Remind them that these narrowly defined definitions of science that require a theory to be observable, repeatable and falsifiable must also exclude macroevolution. For example, Creation is not repeatable but neither is evolution. Nobody has ever observed one kind of animal evolve into a different kind.
Evolutionists maintain that some invertebrate evolved into a fish.
They may believe it because of their subjective interpretation of the fragmentary fossil record, but they cannot repeat the evolution of a fish in a laboratory. Prominent evolutionary philosophers of science will agree with me that even though that argument worked for them once in an Arkansas case, it is an invalid argument because creation and evolution theories are equally scientific or unscientific depending on the criteria used in the definition of science. Science should be a search for logical explanations The only definition of science that can eliminate creationism without eliminating evolution, is a definition that requires a naturalistic explanation to origins. Although scientists have never scientifically proven that God does not exist, some evolutionists insist that science teachers begin with this atheistic presupposition. Public schools are supposed to be neutral toward religion.