So… is the idea here, that creationism could be true, but even if it were true, you wouldn’t be >>allowed to teach it in science class, because science is only about “natural” things?
If god(s) exist and (s)he/they/it created the universe and we possessed irrefutable evidence for both of those things, then s(he)/they/it would be “natural”, and so, yes, you would be allowed to teach this in science class in that case.
Let me try again. People deploy the term “god” in different ways and mean different things by it.
There are in fact three definitions I am aware of:
(1) Theist—god(s) interfere in the world today and listen when we do stuff like “pray”,
(2) Deist—god(s) created the world at the beginning, but no longer actively interfere after than point, and
(3) Pantheist—god(s) are a metpahor for a concept like “mother nature” or “the laws of physics”.
If god(s) exist and (s)he/they/it created the universe and we possessed irrefutable evidence for both of those things, then s(he)/they/it would be “natural”, and so, yes, you would be allowed to teach this in science class in that case.
There are in fact three definitions I am aware of:
(1) Theist—god(s) interfere in the world today and listen when we do stuff like “pray”, (2) Deist—god(s) created the world at the beginning, but no longer actively interfere after than point, and (3) Pantheist—god(s) are a metpahor for a concept like “mother nature” or “the laws of physics”.