Hi Jeanie, just a few points.



I'm not sure what you're suggesting to be honest. Science needs to be taught in science lessons, and religion needs to be taught in religious studies classes.



I certainly hope not. IMO a science teacher who believes in creationism must necessarily be excluding much scientific evidence and is either poorly educated, or deluding themselves. Sorry to be so blunt; and maybe they'd do a fine job of teaching other aspects of science, but I can't imagine they'd be presenting evolution so well, nor can I imagine that they would be honestly presenting the problems with creationist "science."

There have been major court rulings preventing creationism from being taught as science, which is why we now have "intelligent design." They never stop trying and they've had some recent success in pushing their agenda in certain schools.

This is why I often ask people here to demonstrate what creation "science" is. Notice that there is very little to support it in this whole forum. Instead, creationists mostly spend their time trying to pick holes in the theory of evolution because they think that by default this must show creationism to be the only valid alternative theory.

When we talk about "theory" though, keep in mind that a theory is not just an idea or a hunch. A hypothesis does not become a theory until it has been through rigorous testing and peer review. If any data comes to light which contradicts it, it has to be changed to accommodate that new data. (Notice that creationists are unwilling to change their own ideas about creation in the light of evidence, which usually requires them to ignore or misinterpret that evidence in order to fit it in with what they think MUST be true.) Gravity is a theory. Does that mean that we should be in serious doubt about its ability to explain a phenomenon? How would we have all those satellites in space and be sending people to the moon if we weren't confident we understood pretty well how it works?

Another thing I suggest is to read any one thread on this forum and try to have an objective look at who is presenting evidence and who is refuting it with their own evidence. I suggest starting with the thread about the Grand Canyon and the flood. One of the strongest pieces of evidence there IMO is uranium dating of the erosion of the rocks. No creationist has been able to explain how this is erroneous, though they're keen to claim that it's all lies. And none of them can say much about the fossil record apart from it's just coincidence that it is sorted all over the world, despite the fact that we have so much evidence for the evolution of some species (such as foraminifera) that they can be used by geologists and archaeologists as index fossils.

These do not sound to me like equally scientific points of view. If a creationist here can show they have an understanding of science and the theory of evolution and can intelligently refute this with scientific evidence for their own position, then they might be able to make a valid point about it being taught as an alternative. No one here has come close to this and the posts here speak for themselves if you look.