[medved]

Then why do so many want it taught as a science along with evolution?

Because evolution is an ideological doctrine, similar to a religion. The problem is that in order to have a religion taught alongside evolution on an equitable basis, you'd have to have a religion which operated on a comparable intelectual level to evolution, and the only two feasible candidates are rastifari and voodoo.

[oldcats]

"Because evolution is an ideological doctrine, similar to a religion."
Sorry, but evolution is based on science, not ideological doctrine.
"comparable intelectual level to evolution, and the only two feasible candidates are rastifari and voodoo."
Cute...really intectual rebuttal...(just what I would expect from someone who uses the nick medved. Does he know you are impersonating him here? Or is it some sort of flattery? Nevermind that..)
Can you tell me honestly that creationism has more evidence on it's side than either rastifari and voodoo? And I am talking about hard evidence....not just the word of the Bible.
Through all the discussion here, I have yet to see on hard scientific shred of evidence for creationism that does not go back to the Bible. I am all for anyone believing what they wish, but if you want to have it put out as a scientific theory, please have a little science in it.
Oldcats