Booko
Deviled Hen
A Law has been proven, a theory has not. Life cannot come from non-life, hence we have peanut-butter sealed in jars at every grocery store.
Thank you for proving the point that Creationists do not in fact understand as much about science as Evolutionists do.
Newton's "Laws" were tossed out the window when Einstein came along with relativity. As I wrote before, a "Law" is nothing but a theory that we are very very confident about.
This is the difference between science and Creationism:
1. Science, when it happens across additional evidence that conflicts with existing theories and yes "Laws" retools and adjusts the theories and "Laws" to fit observed Reality.
2. Creationism, when it is confronted with evidence that disproves one of its theses, just refines scientific terms in ways that can be best described as intellectually dishonest.
Science starts with evidence and looks for a theory that fits it.
Creationism starts with the conclusion and then digs around selectively crediting evidence that appears to support that conclusion and casually disregarding anything that conflicts with the conclusion.
Reason #165892 why Creationism is not science and has no place whatsoever in a science classroom.
If you want to teach it in Social Studies, knock yourself out.