[elfman2]

Evolution is a theory incompletely supported by much evidence, therefore consistent with science. Creationism is a hypothesis with absolutely no objective evidence that I’m aware of other than highly contentious claims that evolution is impossible. I’m not aware of any other hypothesis without evidence thought along side major theories in science classes.

Additionally, creationism’s premise is essentially the magic of God, no disrespect intended, and is therefore as incompatible with logic of science as with the logic of math.

Nevertheless, I absolutely support including Creationism in Social Studies classes.

[Rokke]

"Nevertheless, I absolutely support including Creationism in Social Studies classes."

What a unique approach. Imagine...schools teaching more than one theory concerning a complex subject. Next thing you know they'll be teaching kids to consider all matters objectively. Will the world survive?

[TeenagedConservative]

You say that Creationism is incompatible with "the logic of science" because it involves divine intervention. Your earlier claim was that it was not moral to teach creationism in schools. Which is more moral: A theory that involves God's miracles, or one that denies Him any role in our genesis?

Additionally, the fact that you claim Creationism has "absolutely no" evidence leads me to believe you have been rather avoidant of any of our scientific literature. Darwin's Black Box, for example is an explicitly scientific disproof of Darwinism. Creationism is no more a "hypothesis" than evolution. The major justification for teaching evolution is that there is "no other possibility" that doesn't involve God and is thus naturalistic (the implicit criteria for all theories).