"To my understanding that means the growth of creationism, in this person's view, spells the "doom" of science.
"
The person who wrote that marriage simply dismissed the impact of creationism on the sciences. He didn't predict that it would be the "doom" of science at all. He just said that science would ignore it. And that's exactly what science does. It ignores supernatural stuff. It can't study it, so it is simply ignored.
Uffda! "marriage" should be "message."
Well, if you want to call the article that sparked this thread "ignoring it," then fine. It seems to me however, that the proponents of evolutionism are just as much interested in politics, philosophy, subjectivity, and moral judgments as they are in cold, hard facts. This article and attendant remarks being a case in point.
BTW, it is not unconstitutional to teach creationism in public schools unless one considers the Constitution to be a "living, breathing document."