An essay from my homework, stuck here because I like it...
Discuss the difference between the concepts of science and the concepts of creationism. Are there commonalties within both points of view? Are they really as irreconcilable as the media would have us believe?
Science is, quite simply, an attempt to understand the universe base upon the principles of scientific testability, repeatability, and objective, measurable fact.
Creationism has a variety of definitions based on who is constructing it and their position on it. It can be most loosely defined as belief in a single divine creator, or more tightly defined by inclusion of a time frame for that creation, a method for that creation, and other details specific to the religion of the constructor and/or their theoretical opponent in a particular debate.
I do not feel that creationism and science are fundamentally irreconcilable, as both terms posses a wide array of possible definitions, but that they are frequently constructed in opposition to each other such that no reconciliation is possible. I reconcile the two by using the loosest definition of creationism by considering the divine creator to have established the environments which drive evolution. By this understanding, the work of evolution is both wholly natural and scientific and just as much an act of creation by divinity as the process of grinding flour with a water-wheel--the force of the water, the laws of physics, are all scientifically provable fact, but I have placed the grain between the grindstones intending flour. As I've said, though, the primary challenge is in the definition of the terms.