Shifting gears from space momentarily, I wholeheartedly agree with Paul Orwin's post about discussing creationism in science class.

This actually can be a good thing, as he points out, as a "teachable moment," by taking the opportunity to point out, not necessarily that it's wrong, or untrue, but that it's not science. As I've said before, I have no objections to creationism being taught, as long as it's not taught in a science class. And it can even be discussed in a science class, as long as it's not taught there.

I agree with you on this. (!) Actually, it can form a useful point to teach the basics of scientific terminology; fact, hypothesis, theory and so forth.

Creationists I've spoken to seem to have a problem with an observed FACT versus the THEORY to explain the observation.

I must admit, I have a problem with the supposition that "since you can't demonstrate it, it must not be true" dogma. There are a whole host of cosmological theories that can't be "demonstrated" which are accepted as having a high probability of being true. But the notion that a "Prime Mover" is responsible for our existence is automatically dismissed as impossible and unscientific? The vehemence of the opposition is often remarkable.

I must admit, I have a problem with the supposition that "since you can't demonstrate it, it must not be true" dogma.

Well, I'd have a problem with it too, if that were the argument...

...the notion that a "Prime Mover" is responsible for our existence is automatically dismissed as impossible and unscientific?

Yes. What experiment would you propose to prove such a proposition false?

If you can't come up with one, then it's not a useful scientific theory. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's true, just whether or not it's science.