Yes. It provides a modern example of how superstition and religious doctrine have impeded scientific progress throughout history. It can be used to give students a feeling of what Galileo and others went through when their discoveries confronted religious dogma. A teacher can use creationism as a way of explaining just exactly what science is and why creation science does not meet the definition of a science.

I teach mathematics and I try to incorporate the history of the subject in my classes. Science is a human endeavor that involves society and includes societal influences. For this reason I do believe this issue belongs in the science classroom. But I understand the belief that it would be distracting to talk about the history of the subject and societal influences on science in the classroom.

No, because it is not Science.

The word science is derived from the Latin word scientia for knowledge, the nominal form of the verb scire, "to know".

Creationism is based on Faith, not knowledge.

No basis whatsoever. Creationism is religion. Intelligent design is an ad hoc hypothesis with supporting evidence ranging from rhetoric, false dichotomies, circular logic, and conjecture. That evolution occurred is a scientific fact anyway.

It would simply waste time. The existence of the idiocy of creationism should be discussed in media studies and/or comparative religion classes.

I feel that, whilst creationism may have a place in school, a science lesson is definately not that place. It is important for people to be exposed to many different issues, but they should be taught in context. Science for science classes. Evolution is fact, and should be taught as such; creationism is a religious theory that should be mentioned in religious education classes (or something of the like).

"Creation Science" is an oxymoron. It belongs no where near the science classroom.

Teach religion in religious school.