[Darkwolf377]

OK, let's see if this will post on the right thread:

Oh chill out the whole bunch of you. If you read what I wrote in context you'd get my meaning through my admittedly stupid and crappy phrasing. Creationism is a competing ANSWER for the question of creation. Of course it's not a science-based one--you all seem to have ignored that I began my post by pointing out I don't believe in Creationism--but Creationism is of sufficient popularity that it SHOULD be taught in a science course about evolution if only to show how significant opposition exists.

You knew the point I was making, but you're just as hysterical as the Creationists.

[Dimensio]

Of course it's not a science-based one--you all seem to have ignored that I began my post by pointing out I don't believe in Creationism--but Creationism is of sufficient popularity that it SHOULD be taught in a science course about evolution if only to show how significant opposition exists.

But why? Opposition not founded in science has no place in a scientific evaluation. You don't analyze a theory based upon how people might find it offensive to their religious sensibilities.

And if you are going to study "creationism", you'd better be ready for the slew of thousands of religious "creation" stories that will need "equal time" in the classroom. Not that I expect rabid Christian creationists to stand for "competing ideas" being taught alongside their religious stories.