Do you want your children being taught creationism in their science class?

If my children were being taught creationism in science class, I'd be in the school superintendent's face until it stopped.

No. Maybe in some sort of religious studies class, but not science class.

Quote I have Btch face:

[evolution is just a theory and not a scientifically proven fact therefore it should not be treated as such, so if an atheist wants evolution to be put up with then , tough cookies, ur gonna learn about creationism]

Remember, gravity is just a theory too. Maybe you should look up what a theory actually means. A theory is something that is supported by evidence and facts. Evolution has it, creationism does not.

"evolution is just a theory and not a scientifically proven fact"

... clear illustration of why we shouldn't confuse people even more about what science actually is. children are leaving school without any idea of something as simple as what a scientific theory is.

gravity is a theory... theory means we've tested it to see if it can be disproved, it hasn't been, but we're going to keep testing it anyway. which should give people a lot more confidence then if someone had said, 'this is right' and left it at that (e.g. creation).

facts are the observations theories are tested with, the theory is the explanation which consistently accounts for every fact observed. evolution has been tested for decades, it hasn't been disproved. creation is a belief, it isn't tested, it ignores facts, it isn't science.

Since teaching factless religious preachings in public science classes is Unconstitutional, thats a Big No, no matter which Brand Name of Crazy is up.

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87)

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)

"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)

F*ck no. If it was my foot will be so far up the superintendent @ss they could bite my toe nails. There's no way that any form of myth will be taught in a science class. If there is a religious class then that's fair enough, but there is no way that religious dogma will be taught in a public school if I have a say about it.

If creationism were taught in such a way to be fair (including every single creation story out there) then there would be no time left in class to discuss science.

I'd want my children actually learning science in their science classes thank you very much.

Why do you have such a hard time with Creationism being taught- even if you don't agree with it? Why does that bother you. You call it a theory- well, my friend evolution is a theory as well, if you look at the truth of the matter. I don't look at Creationism through any one's eyes then the one that Created us- and it would be wonderful if truth was taught. Go ahead give me thumbs down, it is ok with me.

No, I just want my kids educated about science in a science class. I'm a Christian and I believe the science class is not a place for comments about their being no God neither. Just teach the subject.

Evolution is not a "theory" the way you think it is. Evolution is scientific fact.

If creationism is to be taught, I hope all the other religious myths are taught too.

GOOD question.

I do not agree with the "young earth creationists" theory...if this was being taught in schools I would have a problem with it.

Only things that have irrefutable evidence should be taught...and the rest perhaps expressed EXPLICITLY as theories. I remember that during my high school science class, my teacher seemed to forget that the theory of evolution was just that: a theory.

For example, a few small bone fragments are not substantial evidence that man and ape have a common ancestor. It may fit one of the pieces of the puzzle...but if the puzzle is a 1000 piece jigsaw, do we really have a clear picture?