I suppose it's somewhat ironic that I'm placing this article in Philosophy->Ethics, but perhaps you'll bear with me to see why.

Let's face something, folks - there's a big debate, on these forums, and just about everywhere else, about what should be taught in a science classroom and what should not.  I have one real problem with the argument from both sides - it is emotionally based.  I find absolutely no use for emotion when discussing something that is "supposedly" scientific whether it be evolution OR Intelligent design.  Any emotion regarding either subject needs to be summarily discarded as not useful to the argument.

So I am writing this article, outside of ANY issue up for debate, to state what I "believe" (word used for humor purposes) is a fact.  And that fact is that anything that does not use The Scientific Method in its determination is not science and therefore should not be taught in a science classroom.  That said, here is a synopsis on The Scientific Method.  If you agree that this method is an unbiased good way to determine facts about nature, then apply it to your beliefs and see if it is science.  If you can test your beliefs using the scientific method and are willing to publish those testable results for all to see, then have on!  Perhaps your belief belongs in the science class.  Yay!

The Scientific Method goes like this:

1. Ask a question. 
   
2. Do some background research
3. Construct a hypothesis.  A hypothesis goes like this:  If I do "this" then "that" will happen.
4. Design an experiment by which you can test that hypothesis.
5. Test the hypothesis with your experiment.
6. Record the results.
7. Ask the question "Do the results prove my hypothesis, disprove it, or is there still room for doubt?
8. If it proves your hypothesis, retest several times to make sure you get the same results.
9. If it disproves your hypothesis, well, you're pretty much done with that hypothesis.  Rewrite it and try again from step 5.
   
10. If there's room for doubt, you must redesign your experiment to test for something you can either prove or disprove.  If that is impossible, then the question you are asking is located outside of the realm of science.

Is that pretty clear?  I hope so.  There are lots of anti-god evolutionists that want to state that evolution is 100% fact.  That automatically makes them non-scientific because nothing can be proven to be 100% fact. 

For people that believe they have enough evidence to lay down some money in a bet that evolution is a fact, these anti-god types do discredit to the rest.  I do not support them.  They give atheists that love people and try to live good lives a bad name.

For people that believe that in order to combat THAT group they must circumvent the scientific method to get "equal time" for their beliefs, I am sad to say I have nothing but scorn.  For they are doing nothing different from the people they have issue with.

I urge you all to make your own science.  But you have to follow the above method.  The above method has no predisposition to anything except that which can be made observably true through rigorous experimentation.  And if you can't use that method to prove your hypotheses, then don't cry about it when it isn't taught in a science class.  It hasn't earned the right to be there.  Saying that it has is unethical.