So what exactly is "science", anyway?

Before I can establish the scientific basis for evolution and creationism, I should first establish a working definition of science. Dictionary.com defines science as “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” That seems like as good a definition as any, but I do feel as if a bit of elaboration is in order if we’re going to be talking about what is and is not considered science.
All right, let’s elaborate on that definition. Knowledge is familiarity or acquaintance with facts and truth, as you most likely know. So, what’s with the systematic part? Science is very much dependent on a method—the scientific method. And the scientific method involves, you guessed it, observation and experimentation. That means that scientists have to set up tests or trials in a controlled setting in order to observe the way things work and in order to prove their hypotheses. Without experimentation and observation, scientists wouldn’t have any sort of reliable account of the natural phenomena that exists in our world. And the system of the scientific method is very much reliable—after all, it’s an integral component of science itself.
So, observation and experimentation: that’s how we go about performing science. So, what exactly is scientifically knowable? What can be scientifically knowable will be a recurring theme once I start describing the different positions I’ll be covering. An important aspect of science is that it can only validate or invalidate hypotheses and theses that are falsifiable. In this context, when a hypothesis is falsifiable doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s false, but it does mean that if the hypothesis happens to false that it can be proved false through the scientific method.
Well, that’s a simple exposition into what science is what it can cover. For my current purposes, this will suffice. In the future as more issues concerning the nature of science and non-science come up, I’ll be sure to cover them.

Hello, world!

The question of origins is one of incredible importance and relevancy in our modern-day society. After all, what we believe about the origins of our species has a profound influence on our attitudes concerning a number of different topics, but more importantly it frames our attitudes about science, religion, and the interaction between the two. Likewise, what we teach in schools about the subject of human origin is equally as important. In many regions of America, there is an ongoing controversy concerning the roles of the theory of evolution and the idea of creationism in our educational system. Does evolution have scientific flaws that compromise its validity? Is creationism a legitimate, alternative theory worth teaching? Exactly what sort of qualities should an idea have in order for it to be justified as being taught in a science class?

Those are definitely all questions that this blog is going to consider; however, the overall aim of this blog is to analyze the empirical and scientific backing of evolution and creationism, determine their overall scientific validity, and examine which one, if any, has a role in our American education system.

As a first-year student of a major research University of the United States, and as someone who has had a lot of first-time experience with both sides of the controversy, I understand the importance of the issue in our daily lives; what is at stake is more than just our individual beliefs and ideals, but the entire framework of which we place faith and science in our lives.