To be technical it is supported by no evidence, is internally inconsistent and is not falsifiable.
If all the evidence taken into consideration can be explained by the scientific model proposed and the model successfully predicts outcomes of experiments yet to be performed, it is a "good scientific theory" It still can be incorrect. If it is proven incorrect it should be abandoned.
A hypothesis that has been well tested and is considered to probably be true.
A scientific theory is an explanation of some natural phenomenon. A scientific law is a succinct statement of some aspect of a scientific theory.
That would depend on the scientific theory in question.
scientific theory
The scientific view on creationism is that there is no scientific evidence supporting it.
No, public schools should not teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes because creationism is not based on scientific evidence and is considered a religious belief. Science classes should focus on teaching scientifically supported theories and concepts. Students can explore creationism in a religious studies class or outside of the science curriculum.
Technically, there is no such thing as scientific creationism. Creationism is per definition un- or even anti-scientific.
Evolution is a scientific theory explaining the diversity of modern life. The various forms of creationism are religious beliefs, usually inspired by ancient myths captured in religious scriptures.
Because he champions the validity of the scientific bases for the theory of evolution. He also effectively educates regarding the inadequacy of Creationism as a scientific theory.
Creationism can and should be taught in a sociology classroom setting, but not in a science classroom like some people want it to be. The reason for this is that creationism is not a scientific theory or even principle, it's part of cultural mythology.
Aside from some genuine scientific concern about the mechanism of heritability and the role of genes at about 1900, the greatest opposition to the theory has been religious ideology and social science/humanities misunderstandings about the theory. Google creationism. Google secular creationism. Google the modern synthesis.
Creationism can be called a scientific theory only by means of the most egregious sophistry.Sophistry is a charlatan's best defense against the truth.
Absolutely not. The Theory of Evolution is the accepted scientific theory of how living things evolved on this planet. If you're looking for a "bankrupt" theory a serious contender would be the unscientific theory of Creationism. It has absolutely no scientific currency to support it. However, as Ayn Rand said so eloquently: Those who deny reason cannot be conquered by it.
No.Creationism is seen by the scientific community as pseudoscience at best, religious interference at worst. In official definitions, it is a hypothesis only, and not a scientific one at that. Regardless of what its supporters claim or would like to believe, they are a very tiny minority. 99.9% of scientists accept the current mainstream views such as the Big Bang theory and the thmodern evolutionary synthesis, and have in the process invalidated creationism as a viable alternative.
Creationism.
Creationism.