Creation or evolution?

In theory, I think it's a great idea. As a student in high school, I tend to greatly appreciate the diversity of course offerings (and am likewise quite disappointed when many are cut due to budget constraints). I think it would be good to be more specific in your views, though. For instance, while this may be good for mature students who already have background on both sides, this is probably a poor idea to use on younger students, as they probably are probably not able to make an educated, or rather, the best choice.

I wish to respect your desire to not have this thread become a flamewar, but I would just like to mention that the purpose of school is to educate students on skills that will help them later in life. Seeing as how science is generally accepted in modern society (apart from the diehards, that is), such a blanket technique will not be beneficial. Simply, I think that religious teachings are better off taught in church, because there is a total concensus. If you go to church, you know fully well what you want. However, if my school was to do a vote like this, and (unfortunately) in the case that creationism won out, I would refuse to attend classes. That's it.

Otherwise, I think your idea has potential, especially in some of the Southern states where this issue is more of a problem.

why limit it solely to this specific issue? or even to the curriculum? why not let students choose the method by which their progress is monitored? hell, why not let em set the calendar and schedule classes?

A few issues:
- the alternatives must be valid within the educational framework that's being taught, i.e., only science should be taught in science class. If this isn't enforced then what you're actually offering is the chance to achieve a high school diploma outside of the set standards. In systems where there's a regional diploma exam, would this have to change as well? How would universities view the credentials of such students?
- aren't educators supposed to be leading the students because they know better? What does the voting/choice system express?
- how would you present the alternatives and negate the effects of: speaker popularity/familiarity, oratorial style/skill, gender/cultural/age/racial bias?

1.) Vote as a student body for what is going to be taught. The overall side with most percentage points...wins. This can be done every year. 2.) Have a couple of different class options for the students to take for them to fulfill the science part of their program. One option could be just being taught the current regular way...evolution. Another class would include the MAJOR theories of how the world came to be. The classes should fulfull the same standards...workload...etc should be the same, only the material presented is different.

I think you've come up with some interesting, creative ideas. I don't think they're solutions, though.

I'm all for allowing children to pursue their interests and have a level of control over the direction of their education (particularly high school students).

However, these are the problems I see with what you've suggested:

a) You still have government employees endorsing/promoting religion.
Kids who do not learn evolution are handicapped in science when they get to college.

Although I agree with the sentiment I'm not sure it would work. Really it in a way it defeats the priciple of fighting Creations Vs. Evolution in court in that they should even have to choose. Creationsism (or its psuedo-scientific facade Intelligent Design) isn't a scienctific theory and so scienctists should not be forced to teach it under any circumstances. It would be sort of like asking the kids the vote on being taught that 2 + 2 = 5 in math class just because their religion said it was true. In short I think they should do what they are doing now and fight it out in court and hopefully put a stop to it once and for all.

"aren't educators supposed to be leading the students because they know better? "

Ummm, no. We don't know better necessarily. And the current focus in education is on admitting that. I like to sum it up as "A godo teacher doesn't know all the answers, but they know how to find them".

Ziggy, There has indeed been a growing movement towards what is often called "democratic schools" particularly in the USA and these schools have met with a lot of success because students are engaged with their learning because they are investigating the topics they are interested in. However, democratic schools have not been about closing off any one side of an issue, rather to have kids research both sides quite heavily and then make their own informed decisions based on that. (This is known as critical literacy. Strangely enough the strongest opponents of crit lit are in favour of teaching both ID and evolution in schools. Go figure). I don't think it's good for any child to end up with only one biased viewpoint. They will encounter difference when they leave school, and they are best equipped for that if they are exposed to difference within school...as W Bush recently said when talking about this issue.

I agree wholeheartedly with students being involved in decisions about the curriculum (as long as you still are teaching the prescribed curriculum). I don't believe you have to wait til they're older, in fact primary kids are better at it.

It would be sort of like asking the kids the vote on being taught that 2 + 2 = 5 in math class

They aren't!?!?!? Get the pitchforks and the torches guys, we got a school board to lynch!! <- for the humor impaired

Considering what I HAVE seen in different curriculum (and the way that text books have radically changed in the last 20 years), I wouldn't be very surprised if they did start teaching that. As a homeschool family, we evaluate a number of different texts to use in the classroom. Comparing them to what I remember from when I was at the same point (22 years ago), it's a big change.

Now, having said that. There's a really easy way to allow the parents AND the students dictate what they learn in school - home school. However, I will be one of the loudest ones saying that homeschooling is NOT for everyone. For a number of reasons. It is a viable alternative for some, however.

Why not let the kids, those who are being taught, choose what they want to learn?

Because they don't have the necessary skills to decide what they should learn.

why limit it solely to this specific issue? or even to the curriculum? why not let students choose the method by which their progress is monitored? hell, why not let em set the calendar and schedule classes?

Why not go farther and let them do their own evaluations?

i should say that I am not totally against the idea of kids having some say in what they learn. But the selection of choices should be within that subject area, mixing science and religion does not count. I DO however think that creationism should be mentioned when teaching evolution, but only in the sense of why it being apart of the history of how evolution theories were develop. Even in my very secular school it was mentioned but it was never advocated as a viable alternative and really that is what these creationist what. I know this sounds like a very scientifically arrogant point of view but look at this way: do we ask teachers of religion to read the origin of species along side genesis.

Essentially I think people should be allowed to make a choice BUT we shouldn't force science teachers to teach religion. The can learn about creationism in religion class and make their own choice that way. Otherwise where does it end? Why should they just teach the Christian creationist story? You could spend an eternity on other theories. In the thing at most creationism should serve for comparison purposes.

...this is probably a poor idea to use on younger students, as they probably are probably not able to make an educated, or rather, the best choice.

Thats why I said high school aged kids. Those who are 15-18 years old. They want to be able to make choices and I think if you give them the information to make a education and informed decision, they are more likely to make one. I believe that if the kids were given a choice into chosing what they want to learn...they will be prone to learn more from it.

why limit it solely to this specific issue? or even to the curriculum? why not let students choose the method by which their progress is monitored? hell, why not let em set the calendar and schedule classes?

I see your point here, although sarcastic. Right now..its a big debate..the parents are trying to tell their kids what they should learn. When do we draw the line and let them chose and let them decide what they want to learn? As far as the curriculum...they need to know what is set for them to learn. Science however, only gives one viewpoint. While it supports theories...it does not support any other theory outside of evolution when it comes to how the world evolved.

Now....Evolution is just one theory. It has not been proven fact or fiction yet. The same is true for Creationism. Hasnt been proven. Both are on the same side...both have their own set of beliefs WHY their theory holds true.

Religion itself is defined as many things...one defintion says: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
Wouldnt that hold true for both sides? I think of religion as a belief. Its a personal belief to believe in God...or to believe in evolution. Its something that is most important to you. All the students hear in schools is the belief of evolution.

the alternatives must be valid within the educational framework that's being taught,

I know what you are saying, but if I had a set of science standards here, I guarantee I could apply it to both sides. The main purpose of science is to explore, identify, experiment, theorize...trying to figure out why things work. But when it comes to the worlds existance, forget it...dont explore, dont try and experiment, theorize only one factor, and dont identify...dont consider anything else.

Im also not talking about teaching religion. History classes alone mention other religions / beliefs such as Buddhism, Aryans, native american beliefs...etc. There is a way to say "The world is thought to have come into being a number of ways: A) through evolution...the process of something changing into a more complex form over millions of years. The world has always existed as it exists now. C) The world was created through powers unknown to us, either by a person, diety, or other forms.

You still have government employees endorsing/promoting religion.

Does this mean that I am promoting, and endorsing religion when I teach a history class and cover the worlds religions and how they set the social setting and standards in the past? Kids are learning about Native American beliefs, dances, worships. They are learning about the other religions as well...such as Hinduism. Just yesterday, I was working with a student on that very topic as we were talking about the caste system.

How does teaching religion and other views in History class, differ from teaching all views (religious and not) of how the world came into being, in science class?

Kids who do not learn evolution are handicapped in science when they get to college.

Im not saying they shouldnt learn evolution. But they are only learning one side of a big issue. Of all the views out there of how the world came into being....only one is evolution. There are many other scientific views of how the world got to where it is. There are also many religious views. Just bcause you are teaching a view point with all other major view points..that doesnt mean you are teaching religion. Also...if they only enter college with one perspective...it sort of hinders their ability to see others perspectives as well. They are Handicapped if they are not taught evolution, but they are also handicapped when they are only taught one side of the story.

However, democratic schools have not been about closing off any one side of an issue, rather to have kids research both sides quite heavily and then make their own informed decisions based on that. I don't think it's good for any child to end up with only one biased viewpoint.

I agree.

Because they don't have the necessary skills to decide what they should learn.

But yet its ok to leave our own children in their hands as they act as a babysitter? We give them a car to drive around? We try and make them more responsible...why not let them chose what they want to learn...one side....or all sides?

Why not go farther and let them do their own evaluations?

Because..the government itself cant decide how to evaluate the kiddos, and with the wonderful amount of absolutely zip in funding we recieve from George to make the evaluations and assessments, they are constantly changing.

hell, cut out the middle man (or woman) altogether and let the students elect one of themselves to be instructor.

We can go real far with this idea.

Why not go farther and let them do their own evaluations?

hell, cut out the middle man (or woman) altogether and let the students elect one of themselves to be instructor.

'...this is probably a poor idea to use on younger students, as they probably are probably not able to make an educated, or rather, the best choice.'
'Thats why I said high school aged kids.'

i.e. Younger kids might pick the wrong education for themselves. Therefore let's wait until they have been sufficiently educated to pick the right education for themselves. Hmm.

Therefore let's wait until they have been sufficiently educated to pick the right education for themselves. Hmm.

I think that is called College.

I think that is called College.

So basically, you think that while the students, starting at grade 6-7, can pick elective classes of their own choosing (which means, they pick what they learn); you dont think its a good idea to choose which science class to pick from in high school? Its either A) a widely disputed theory which has been argued forever; or covering all major theories, not putting one over the other...giving the students the ability to decide AND think for themselves what they want to learn.

The difference between high school and college as far as choosing classes is concerned, is null. There still is a specific class regimine to stick to, and the students pick their electives. And if they are so sufficiently educated to pick the right education for themselves, there wouldnt be such a large percentage of college students that change their degree path at least once during their college tenure.

Therefore let's wait until they have been sufficiently educated to pick the right education for themselves.

If this was truley the case, there are many people out there that shouldnt be allowed to vote. I hear lots of people say something like "Im going to vote for George...because he is a republican...and Im a republican...so yeah...voting for him." "Im going to vote for Al, because he is a Democrat and Im a democrat" Thats not a truley educated vote...chosing based on one political party. I personally vote for whoever most represents myself and where I stand on the issues, or most of them.

there are many people out there that shouldnt be allowed to vote

That is what Walter Cronkite says.

"Why not go farther and let them do their own evaluations?"

Well, yes another interesting topic of debate. Self-evaluation is increasingly being used as formative (not summative) assessment. When you ask students "what do you feel you need the most work in? What do you need help with? What don't you understand?", kids actually start to care about the task of learning, because they see it as a responsibility to themselves rather than a teacher imposing values on them that they don't care about. Again, primary/elementary school kids are better at this because they are more honest and haven't been disillusioned by teachers who don't seem to do anything but yell at them for being stupid. That sort of approach only leads kids to believe that the teachers don't actually care about them or like them. By giving them a say in their education, we remove that problem.

"But the selection of choices should be within that subject area, mixing science and religion does not count."

I'm coming from a primary school POV here, where there is far less separation of subject areas. I don't agree with the way high school separates subject areas. In the real world, scientists have to do maths, they often try to remedy topics that are covered in SOSE and they have to use forms of communication taught in English. That said, I do think when the teaching of ID is done, it should be said that the theory is not based on the same types of proofs that science uses, it is based on a different understanding of how the world works.

"Even in my very secular school it was mentioned but it was never advocated as a viable alternative and really that is what these creationist what."

Attending the same school, I always rallied against the teacher when they tried to shove evolution down our throats because it was never put for any sort of debate or questioning. The way it was taught to me did not make it seem logical. I had so many questions and became angry that I could not ask these questions, but simply had to regurgitate what the teacher said. Needless to say, that semester I got my only D in my schooling career.

"I know this sounds like a very scientifically arrogant point of view but look at this way: do we ask teachers of religion to read the origin of species along side genesis."

Point taken. My problem is just that science wants to present itself as the only way to come to the truth. Religion is often based on different, but equally valid philosophical assumptions that are attemtping to find truth. Science is increasingly being accused of being a religion because it refuses to acknowledge its own philosphical limitaions. (This is also why I advocate a return to the days where a Science degree had to include a Philosophy of Science course). Science provides good explanations, but why is it so scared of opening itself up to debate?

When you ask students "what do you feel you need the most work in? What do you need help with? What don't you understand?", kids actually start to care about the task of learning, because they see it as a responsibility to themselves rather than a teacher imposing values on them that they don't care about.

Good point. This reminded me of an alternative school program here in town. I have substituted there quite a few times as a para professional this school year. The students are there because of behavioral issues. They each have a points sheet each day that gives them up to 100 points each day. If the students bring the points back..they EARN that 100 points to put in a pretend checking account that they get to use to buy stuff on incentive Fridays. The students, at the end of each class period, are asked to evaluate themselves based on peer interactions, staff interactions, their 3 goals...etc, altogether 10 points for each period. By evaluating themselves alongside the teacher, they are taking responsibility for their choices and their behavior, and they see the good and the bad of their behavior choices.

My problem is just that science wants to present itself as the only way to come to the truth. Religion is often based on different, but equally valid philosophical assumptions that are attemtping to find truth. Science is increasingly being accused of being a religion because it refuses to acknowledge its own philosphical limitaions. (This is also why I advocate a return to the days where a Science degree had to include a Philosophy of Science course). Science provides good explanations, but why is it so scared of opening itself up to debate?

I agree that often scientists get dogmatic about their theories. I think this does needs to be addressed but if you want to provide an alternative theory you have to provide a valid one. ID/creationism is NOT in anyway a scientifically testable theory so even considering it doesn't teach you anything. It would send the message that a theory that is untestable is just as good as testable theory that may have some apparent holes in it (apparent being the operative word in that sentence). So really it would be a step backwards in terms of teaching kids critical thinking. So as I said before it isn't that creationism should not be mentioned at all just that it shouldn't be presented as viable theory. It is essentially a philosophical dead end because its answer to why life exists is simply "It just is, don't question it. Some guy in the clouds made life okay, now shutup!"
The truth is the theory of evolution doesn't stop with Darwin. It is made up of many smaller sub-theories with in that set out to explain specific problems (e.g. why did sex evolve). These sub-theories are constantly being contested within the scientific community. The problem is you usually only learn about these things at the university level.

I disagree that religion is based on equally valid philosophical assumptions. They are only valid within itself, as in if you believe it they are valid TO YOU but they can't be proved to be valid by any "objective" logical test. It is funny because you were the one who was arguing to me that you can only use logic to prove stuff. Well in this case the only way you could prove ID is to assume that logic isn't the only way of coming to conclusions, but of course in that case you couldn't use logic to prove that and any logical conclusion would be considered invalid *bang, my brain just exploded*.

Really if there are scientists that have a problem with becoming dogmatic it isn't a science problem. It is a human problem. How can you pin this on scientists when it is part of the human condition? Are we going to have classes on how to avoid gettin into emotive rather than logical arguements? Really the scientific method is set-up so that the scientists opnion shouldn't matter one way or the other. If science becomes dogmatic it is a problem with the scientist's methods not the scientific method itself.

Attending the same school, I always rallied against the teacher when they tried to shove evolution down our throats because it was never put for any sort of debate or questioning. The way it was taught to me did not make it seem logical. I had so many questions and became angry that I could not ask these questions, but simply had to regurgitate what the teacher said. Needless to say, that semester I got my only D in my schooling career.

It sounds like you got a shit teacher but that doesn't necessarily represent the whole of scientific education. I think if it is explained to you well it doesn't cause any problems and is quite easy to understand. In the hands of that teacher you probably would be MORE confused if ID was brought in as well. It would not really add anything to the teaching anyway because on one side you would get a whole explanation of how evolution works and on the other side you'd get "God made everything." I will explain why you couldn't argue its validity/invalidity below.

That said, I do think when the teaching of ID is done, it should be said that the theory is not based on the same types of proofs that science uses, it is based on a different understanding of how the world works.

Well there is the problem right there. It isn't based on any sort of logical proofs at all. It isn't really an understanding of the way the world "works" even (god works in mysterious ways), just why the world "is". I think the main distinction between science and religion is this:

Science: You start at your first premise point A (creation of the universe and matter etc.) go through point B (chemical and biological evolution) which leads to C (life that changes)

Religion: You start at your first premise point A (God made everything, so shut the fuck up). End of story.

See there is nothing you can argue about in religion in a scientific/logical way. Its first premise is also its conclusion there isn't ANY line of logic you can argue against. The only hope you have is to prove that God doesn't or does exist (which isn't, as far as I know, possible).

There is a huge difference between electives and core curriculum classes. I don't think people are making the proper distinction here when talking about student-driven curriculums and such. At the core of every public school program there are basic science, math, english and history requirements. Those form the core of just about everyone's education. In these core areas you are taught concepts to learn and understand. In these core classes, there is very little room for "exploring alternatives" That's not the objective of core classes. Core classes take one generally accepted view or approach to a topic and teach the material so the students understand it. From what I remember, there was very little "discovery" or experimentation in High School science. There were practical lessons where you took a concept you learned in theory and applied it in the lab, but as far as expanding knowledge or looking at alternatives, that wasn't the objective.

So you have core classes where they present one approach to the subject based on generally accepted guidelines. That's their objective. They give you a foundation of knowledge to work from.

Then you have electives. These are secondary courses that allow students to explore what they find interesting. These courses are not required specifically (beyond taking X number of electives). It is in this area that non-traditional, or not yet fully accepted scientific ideas could be explored. There could be an Intelligent Design elective science course where students explore this alternative theory. I don't think this would be such a problem for people since it would be entirely optional, and only those interested in the issue would take it.

High School is not the place where you get to explore new and exciting ideas, it's not the place where you tailor your education to fit your interests. As someone else pointed out, that's what college is for.

ID/creationism is NOT in anyway a scientifically testable theory so even considering it doesn't teach you anything.

Cant really test evolution either. All we are doing is putting monkey bones together and saying "hey, they look like us....we must have come from them...because a lot of things are the same" A cat and a dog have a crap load of similarities as well, but are two completely different things.

It would send the message that a theory that is untestable is just as good as testable theory that may have some apparent holes in it (apparent being the operative word in that sentence). So really it would be a step backwards in terms of teaching kids critical thinking.

Not really. Scientific theory is now being taught as what it is is, a theory, not fact. There are a bunch of steps to take with the final result being 'this theory has tested true using all of the methods that we have tried so far," not "this is set in stone"

I think the main distinction between science and religion is this:Science: You start at your first premise point A (creation of the universe and matter etc.) go through point B (chemical and biological evolution) which leads to C (life that changes)Religion: You start at your first premise point A (God made everything, so shut the fuck up). End of story.

With science, you have many different theories on how the world came into being....how it formed, how it evolved...etc. Creationism doesnt necessarily teach that God created the world because that, to me, is teaching religion. Instead...focus on the fact that there are a large number of people out there that think the world was created by other means, other powers.

In these core classes, there is very little room for "exploring alternatives" That's not the objective of core classes.

Yes it is. How many ways do you know how to multiply? Horizontally, vertically, grid...etc. Division? There are actually a few ways to do division. Fractions? Subtraction? We learn how to do all of these many different ways, we are taught many different approaches in every subject....except science.

From what I remember, there was very little "discovery" or experimentation in High School science.

Not sure how this happened. Science classes today are very hands on, lots of experimentation, forming ideas and testing them out....blowing stuff up, dissecting...etc. Lots of figuring out how stuff works.

There were practical lessons where you took a concept you learned in theory and applied it in the lab, but as far as expanding knowledge or looking at alternatives, that wasn't the objective.

But yet, alternatives are free to explore everywhere else in any other subjects.

So you have core classes where they present one approach to the subject based on generally accepted guidelines

Creationism is a widely accepted guideline. Id be willing to say that out of all the worlds people...more people believe it was created by something / someone, than just evolution. Mainly based on the fact that this is because the creation belief comes from many world religions and a large number of the worlds population believes in these religions.

There could be an Intelligent Design elective science course where students explore this alternative theory. I don't think this would be such a problem for people since it would be entirely optional, and only those interested in the issue would take

Oh yeah...people throw a huge ass fit when it comes to their tax dollars being spent in the schools. Wouldnt stand for it.

Cant really test evolution either. All we are doing is putting monkey bones together and saying "hey, they look like us....we must have come from them...because a lot of things are the same" A cat and a dog have a crap load of similarities as well, but are two completely different things.

That isn't really true, there are many other lines of evidence. Genetic mutation analysis, microevolution (antibiotic resistance) and many other things point to evolution. Cats and dogs aren't two completely different things when you look at their genetic similarity. In evolutionary terms they had a common ancestor comparitatively recently, though not as recently as say dogs and wolfs (which by some definitions are the same species). I agree their are certain limits to testing the theory, after all it would probably take several human life times to see two populations of a species diverge in to different speices. There are many lines of evidence to shown how species divergence would occur over a long period of time though.

With science, you have many different theories on how the world came into being....how it formed, how it evolved...etc. Creationism doesnt necessarily teach that God created the world because that, to me, is teaching religion.

Huh?! I thought that was the very definition of creationism. What is creationism if it doesn't teach that god created the world?

Instead...focus on the fact that there are a large number of people out there that think the world was created by other means, other powers.

Sure you can say that but to present those other powers as a viable alternatives you need some sort of line of logic to argue with. Essentially you need to argue first the existance of God and then teach ID, which is basically teaching religion. If you don't teach them to come to the conclusion with logic you are asking them to take it on faith. WIth evolution the students have access to over a century of research on the subject. WIth religion there isn't any effort to provide proof, despite the fact they have been around for thousands of years.

Yes it is. How many ways do you know how to multiply? Horizontally, vertically, grid...etc. Division? There are actually a few ways to do division. Fractions? Subtraction? We learn how to do all of these many different ways, we are taught many different approaches in every subject....except science.

The difference is that all those different ways to multiply are based on logic. Teaching Creationism/ID in science is essentially ignoring logic. I don't think there is anything wrong with scienctific method. I think there IS a problem evaluating whether experiments are truly testing what they think they are testing. It isn't the scientific method itself but the interpretation of results and evaluation of experimental protocols where things fall down. Even then we have peer reviewing and much debate over experiments and their validity or lack of it.

Huh?! I thought that was the very definition of creationism. What is creationism if it doesn't teach that god created the world?

ok hmmm Im looking up definitions of creationism and they are all pointing towards the Bible version of how the world was created. What I meant was that creationism, at least how I look at it, is not just a Biblical point of view of the worlds creation, but any view that the world was created by someone / something else. Native americans believe we came into being in some other fashion. Many people believe that the world came into being by some other method than swirling around by gravity and things mutating.

From str.org

"When scientists attempt to draw metaphysical conclusions from physical data, they've stepped out of line. Natural science can explain the "what," but not the "why." It answers questions about physical properties, physical behavior, and the formative history of the observable universe. That's all.

The non-physical realm, on the other hand, is the object of a different sort of inquiry. Science cannot tell us of the ultimate origin of the universe. Since science uses empirical data--that known by the five senses--something must exist first for science to examine. Questions regarding an immaterial "something" that might have produced the material realm can't, even in principle, be answered by science.

Neither can science answer questions about the governance of the universe, though it's quite capable of drawing conclusions about its behavior. Even the so-called laws of nature are not truly laws. They don't compel behavior; they merely describe it. That which is behind this behavior is not natural, but supra-natural, outside the proper domain of science. "
"For millennia science was viewed differently. The older tradition had one aim: to identify ideas worth believing. According to Aristotle something was scientific if it was assured or certain, regardless of which realm it referred to. The important thing was whether or not a view was properly justified. It was also distinguished by its "know-why"--its comprehension of first causes--as opposed to its "know-how."During the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance this view began to change. The emphasis switched to methodology. Instead of starting with directly intuited first principles, scientists offered ad hoc theories to predict events (e.g. planetary motion) and then tested them by observation.

The shift in science from a general methodology to determine truth to one that was solely empirical was complete by the modern era. Scientific empiricism became scientific imperialism: science as the final measure of all truth. This view is called scientism. Science deals with fact. All else, including morality and theology, is mere opinion, personal preference and private fantasy.
"

Ziggy, you're falling into the common trap of not knowing what scientific theory is. Scientific theory is a reasonably proven (but not absolutely proven) hypothesis. A Hypothesis is a statement that is almost completely unproven.

We have Atomic Theory
We have the Theory of Relativity
Gravity was at one time considered a theory.

Theories are hypothesis proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but not necessarily complete. A car is a good analogy. It works, we know it works and we know generally how it works. However, individual parts of the car can be taken out, improved upon, maybe combined with other parts as our understanding improves.

Creationism/Intelligent Design hinges on a completely unproven (or in the case of religious creationism, unprovable). In science, you have to have a solid foundation for it to be considered a theory, and Creationism/ID lacks that. It is a hypothesis seeking proof.

That is the key difference.