Linda Lou: Until creationists can make a solid case for creationism being scientific and a viable alternative to evolution, it does not belong in science classes, and it should not be given weight as a competing theory.

Jeanie: I can see where you think it should be separate in a way - but I see them as related as a believer. Depends on your point of view, I guess. But scripture and the whisperings of the spirit, to me, are much more compelling an argument than Lucy and her supposed relatives and abiogenesis or a primordial soup just because of some of the behaviors of bacteria. They are amazing, though! I'll grant them that. (Bacteria).

Obviously the subject of creation in depth is best saved for a religion class but my argument is that it should at least be represented. The truth is there is way more intelligence behind the creation. Today after the Science Dept. head told me her opinion about evolution (as a believer even) I thought to myself that she is, apparently, looking at things from an unbalanced point of view. She was sitting there eating a cherry on a stool outside the classroom while the kids came in from the hall. I found myself musing about how nutritious cherries are and then thought about how amazing it would be for some spontaneous formation to take place which just happens to put forth all the plant with the nutrition our bodies need...all the medicinal herbs...the delicate balance of of the ecosystems. THAT to me is evidence. I feel a connection to my creator and refusing to accept what He has stated through his prophets is going to cause a disconnect from Him. I would rather appear simple if that is what believing has to mean in some people's eyes. It goes back to the simple and maybe not so simple principle of faith....