there are many debates already on teaching creationism - it is silly. It might be accepted in the later grades as part of a comparative religion course, but should probably just be left to college study.

Creationism does not teach "how god got here".

Maybe we should focus on teaching students to "right"[sic] instead.

LOL, since when do young children even have a view on life, since they really do not even have a concept of what it is yet? At that age, they take the views of their parents. I am a person of faith and do appreciate the separation of church and state; however, most major religions believe in creation and disagree on most everything else. It could very well be taught as a theory or idea since 90% of the world population subscribes to some type of faith. I do agree however that school is for reading, writing and arithmetic. I am not a real fan of anything else being taught in public schools as even history and science has slanted views on certain topics. Creationism is not a science, but it does fit into other areas of our lives. Our children learn many things in school that their parents and family do not agree with, but that does not mean it is being "shoved" down anyone's throat or we should be offended by it, you just teach them the truth at home. For example, we do not believe in evolution, but it is "shoved" down my children's throats at school. I just teach my children that it is a popular theory and they can judge for themselves...end of story. Same holds true with Greek mythology. I think that is a bunch of hogwash, but I teach my children that it is just an interesting story of someone's imagination. I am a firm believe however that the schools should always, always, always, respect and encourage a moment of silence.

I think students should have a mandatory religious class in general. At least a year of it. Something to introduce them to ALL religions, instead of them just hearing what the media or their parents say about religion. It will give students a chance to become more open-minded, and a chance to properly choose what they believe themselves.

You are thinking more unbiasedly as is evidence by the "ALL religions;" however, that would still be heavily biased towards theism over atheism. It is still a form of bias by the government that extolls "freedom of religion" (or lack thereof).

unfortunately the believers in creationism make it so that there are no debatable aspects of creationism. Once you point out the ways we know that the earth is more than 6,000 years old (ref) or that genesis would have us believe that there was an earth with water and plants and trees and night and day, before there was a sun, etc.

then they immediately switch to the 'God can do anything' argument which is not a debate it is a religion.

The only thing that should be taught in school is fact based theory, if its a class in religious studies then creationism can be taught, but when i hear that of schools that teach creationism as a scientific alternative to evolution i literally cringe. I don't eman to insult any creationists who may read this but the fact is people who really beleive evolution is false, and the bible has all the answers are suffering from severe mental neurosis, or else they are simply very unintelligent, there i said it.

People can choose to beleive whatever they want, they can believe there are fairies living in a world that only exists in the mind of three month old sheep, but we (society at large, and the educational insitutions we create) should not have any obligation to facilitate those beliefs.

Well, first of all it would displace the time dedicated to things which actually have a scientific basis and have undergone the scientific method.

The indoctrination of Children by a supposedly unbiased source that claims "freedom of religion" isn't bad?

Science is a question mark not a period

Science encompasses the full range of punctuation.

if you can teach one theory you can't prove (i.e evolution)

Evolution has been proven by fossil records, common anatomy (exempli gratia the pentadactyl limb), predictable fauna, elementary genetics as well as direct observation in Rats and in drosophila, the common fruit fly.

This is the scientific argument that an intelligent being created us.

And what evidence does this argument provide?

Further more there is no such thing as the separation of church and state.

That is an incorrect statement. There is no mandated political tie between any church and the United States Government.

It was in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote.

So was Jeffersonian republicanism. Is that a fictional concept as well?

Science is a question mark not a period, if you can teach one theory you can't prove (i.e evolution) then you can teach this one.

We COULD teach anything, this is not however an argument for why we should. Arguments for why we should have not amounted to more than "Because I want it to".

As I have stated numerous times, Creationism is not a theory, nor is Intelligent Design. To even be considered a theory, it must pass a series of rigorous scientific batteries, which neither Creationism nor ID have done.

This is the scientific argument that an intelligent being created us.

Intelligent design is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is religion made to appear scientific, but it is not. Intelligent Design was outlined in the Wedge Document as getting the foot in the door to bring about Christian cultural dominance. Make no mistake, Intelligent Design has it's roots firmly within Christian Evangelism.

After a Supreme court ruling made it unconstitutional to teach Creationism in public schools, a school level textbook called "Of Pandas and People" written by Creationists to promote Creationism, was edited to word replace "Creationists" with "Design Proponents", however a typo rendered one word as "cdesign proponetists" which went to prove that Intelligent Design was merely a deceptive re-branding of Creationism.

It doesn't matter whether you call it a God or an Intelligent "Designer" it is still unscientific for the same reason. This god/designer is unmeasurable, untestable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Further more there is no such thing as the separation of church and state. It was in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote.

...A letter that Jefferson wrote to describe language that would be introduced into the constitution called "The Establishment clause" which would serve as his WALL.