I do not think we should teach religion in science class in public schools and I do not think that churches should have to teach anything they don't want to.
My point was that there are many competing religious beliefs and scientific facts that contradict Genesis. Based on your logic of academic freedom, churches logically should have to offer competing ideas too.
You objected, not on academic freedom grounds, but suggested that support from taxpayers was the determining factor.
I demonstrated that churches ARE supported by taxpayers and you agreed.
Therefore, logically, both churches AND schools should be forced to offer alternatives or NEITHER should. I prefer neither, but since you promote creationism in schools, you logically support evolution in churches
We agree on both of these points. I *think* where we differ is what is being advocated here. I do not believe that "religion" is being required to be taught in science class. I do believe, though, that the weaknesses and strengths of any theory, or belief system, should be taught when that theory or belief system is taught.
Part of the teaching the weaknesses of evolution could include (NOT "should"), religious beliefs of various peoples. While this part would not be science, the exposure of the theory's weaknesses would be the science being discussed.