Allowed by whom? Are you under the impression that there's some overarching national authority that decides what public schools teach? There isn't. Public education is a state matter, and each state decides curricula, selects textbooks, sets criteria for teachers and tries to figure out how to improve schools. Below the statehouse there are local (county, city) school boards with greater or lesser decision-making power left them by the state, and even in a particular school, though everyone is supposed to be governed by policies announced upstream, there is usually some day-to-day flexibility, depending on how far into micro-managing the curriculum the authorities have gone. And the farther down you go toward the actual classroom, the more impact an affinity group of some sort with a fixed agenda can have. There is, however, the Constitution, and a lot of people are intent on maintaining freedom of religion or its absence and the separation of church and state, and they usually succeed in preventing overt religous teaching as explanations of physical phenomena. And Darwinian evolution is universally acknowledged as the dominant paradigm in communities that feel some loyalty to the scientific method, whether the people who feel it understand it or not. On the other hand, a lot of people have had some success pointing to various anomalies and unsolved problems in the details of evolution and insisting on getting competing notions presented in the classroom, sometimes under the rubric of fair play for competing ideas ("intelligent design"), sometimes as social history (it's a historical fact that a lot of people believe in creationism), or under other theories, including parents' rights to control what's taught to their kids. The overall fact is that we wanted freedom of speech and lots of competing opinions, and we've got them, like it or not. So if you're worried about mindless religion subverting the educational process, you'd better be paying attention to your local schools, because anything is possible. And if you're worried about Godless materialism eroding everything we hold dear, you'd better be paying attention to your local schools, because anything is possible. Two excellent articles: Peter J. Broyer, "Jesus in the Classroom," New Yorker, March 21, 2005 (what happened after a very popular teacher in a top-flight school system got religion); and H. Allen Orr, "Master Planned," New Yorker, May 30, 2005 (a look at the "intelligent design" movement, which has been trying to take on evolution without actually mentioning G*d). I believe both are available online.

Public schools are allowed to allow the teaching, but in general such an allowance is not acceptable. Darwinian Evolution, which is not based on the scientific method (it is taught with out the undelying assumptions described, and it is neither observable nor testable). This belief system is the easiest thing to teach and since those that seek to question it are carefully censored, there is very little to challenge it. Darwinian Evolution is also based on a religious belief (known as Secular Humanism), but with the present-day narrowly accepted definition of religion, it is exempt from the oft-quoted "Separaion of church and state" filter. The result is Creationism is "not allowed".

To make a statement that Darwin is not based on the scientific method and is in fact a religiious belief is just amazing. To understand that indiviudals in this country actually belief such rubbish reinforces the notion that our children need to be educated so as not to buy into such silly ideas. Maybe we should turn the clock back and start teaching children that the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the solar system. Please.

'With the caveat that "creationism" is a somewhat vague term that means a lot of different things to different people, a school could teach the idea of "creationism" as part of a comparative religions course or some such, but probably not if they tried to include it in a science curriculum.

They are allowed to teach it, but not as part of a science class -- unless it is simply to mention that some people believe it. According to the US Supreme Court, ruling in the 1987 case Edwards vs. Aguillard, creationism is a religious belief and thus teaching it as "an objective truth" in a public school unacceptably violates the separation of church and state. This is _why_ the "intelligent design" movement tries to deny that it has anything to do with God or religion (in public, anyway). However, the fact that it is illegal to teach creationism that way (it can still be taught as part of a history or social studies or religion class) doesn't actually stop people all the time; see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/not-dead.html for the state of play 10 years ago, and be aware that it has not changed significantly as far as I can tell. Edit to add: Evolution is a theory, that is, a well-tested framework of understanding and methodology which best explains available evidence and observations, without needing recourse to supernatural explanations -- and as such is no more a "religion" than Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism, the Stress Theory of engineering, or the Computational Theory of information. Also, no, atheism is not "by definition" a religion, defined as it is by a lack of belief in deity or supernatural, and lack of any unifying ritual; the assertion echoes a common propaganda point put forward by religious fundamentalists, but does not match up well with reality. Regardless, evolution is not equal to atheism. It neither mandates it nor requires it (in fact, the world is full of people who believe in God and also understand and accept evolution). It merely offers an explanation for the existance of complex life which does not involve direct interference by a deity or supernatural agent -- or by definition...is science. As such, atheists are far more comfortable with this explanation than with one which would require direct interference by a deity, and equally, those who feel that their deity would _never_ create a world which did not need His immanent and immediate touch to make it what it is and keep it running are uncomfortable with it. This does not reflect on the accuracy of evolution as a scientific explanation, however -- only on the comfort levels, preferences and understanding of the people who are contemplating it. A comparison with the heliocentrism put forward by Galileo is somewhat apt, here. This also illustrates the main reason why evolution is taught as a science -- it does not depend on any religious belief, or on atheism, //nor does it mandate it//, and it deals solely with physical evidence -- whereas creationism fails these tests. And the last couple of paragraphs illustrate **exactly** why people need to learn what science is and isn't, and why evolution is such a good point for this.

WARNING! OPINIONATED ANSWER! No. Public schools are not allowed to teach creationism as it's considered to be "a religion". It's simply a very basic look at how man came to be. It also, as suprising as it may be to atheists, has quite a bit of valid scientific evidence. For example, our very own galaxy (the Milky Way) is spinning far too fast to be held together by anything scientific that we can point out. Why isn't it flying apart system by system? Atheist answer: Uh... Obvious answer: Someone's looking out for us. There are many questions left unanswered by the theory of evolution that, for all practical purposes, it shouldn't be taught in public schools either. For example, if you think we're descended from monkeys, what separated us in the first place? What caused the humans and monkeys to go completely different ways and steer clear of one another? Athiest answer: Uh... Obvious answer: Monkeys, huh? Riiiiiight. In short, public schools are NOT allowed to teach creationism in any way, shape, or form (unfortunately) unless it's being taught as part of a religion class (as stated in other answers on this page). However, evolution, which is just as related to religion as creationism (opposites are more related than non-opposites), is taught very regularly at a public level. In all honesty, that's not the way it should be. Pick one: teach NEITHER, or teach BOTH. You can't have it halfway.

no fortunately not. which one would you teach?of all religions the there is 1000 schools of thought . let them learn Darwin and evolution. then in there spare time when they want they can read faerie tales