No. Religion is not a science. This is not a stretch of the imagination.

No. Science is for established facts, and theories with evidence, not belief systems.

I think that because there is no scientific evidence available for the Creationist theory it would be completely inappropriate to teach this theory in the classroom.

Not until the concept of a god can be proven to the point of a hypothosis and then proven independantly to become a theory. No. I do think major religious thoughts and concepts should be taught in a social sciences class so people of every belief would have a better understanding of each other. And that could lead to more tolerance and less fighting. But I don't think that any specific religious view should be taught or practiced in a public school.

-edited- All religions should be covered in HISTORY class not science. There is very little about ANY religion that involves science. In A history class simple overview of the basic principals, where they were first practiced ect could be covered. Religions ARE a part of the history of the world. Creationism can be covered as another religion. By teaching it as history they could stop 50-100 years away from present time and keep away from some ot the issues of teaching relegion in school.

No it should not be taught in the science classroom. Be it Christianity, Islam or anything else. The science classes are for science. If you want your kids to learn about religion, do it at home.

I don't think intellegent design should be excluded as a theory

Nothing I know of. But that's also why there may be any number of hypotheses, like the lightning bolt (which has produced some precursors to organic chemistry in the lab), but no theories I'm aware of. But it's important to note that science has never claimed to have all the answers. On the contrary - it is a search for answers. Also, there are areas where we may never find the answer. It's only religion that claims to have answers that they just make up, with no evidence to support the claims.

I think ALL theories that are relevant should be taught. BUT, it should be presented as a THEORY nothing more.

Because science has nothing to do with religion. Of course hypothetically speaking, if someone decided religion should be taught in public schools...Which one gets taught? Or do the hundreds upon hundreds of religions each get the spot light? For those of us living in the USA - we don't have a national religion. This country was founded on the fact that we have the freedom to choose what we want to believe in. Which is exactly why religion should not be taught in public schools.

All religions could be presented at school, in history or geography class. This would not be trying to convert anyone, but just presenting the main features of the most widespread belief systems (including the non-theist ones). Religion has nothing to do with science. Creationism is religion, not science.

Nope, it should be taught in religion class, and not be allowed to touch any science class with a 10' pole. Creationism = religion =/= science = reality

Religion has no place in a school in my opinion. If people want to practice their religion, they should go to church or wherever. And religion is most certainly not a science.

No more than geography or spelling should be taught in science. Science class is meant for science. Creationism is drawn from the creation tale believed by Christians. There are hundreds of creation tales, none with any more evidence than another. These can be examined in an academic setting, but it should be taught in history or comparative religion classes. Otherwise, you'd spend your whole science course teaching the Christian creation tale, and the Norse, and the Amazonian, and the Mayan, and the Chinese...

The perfect way to teach science is to train the students in research. Science is supposed to be a way to take the facts as presented by experimentation, and determine how they relate to the world we live in. In schools today, science is taught the same way they teach 1, 2, 3. As if the intent is to memorize the discoveries that have already been made. This is wrong.

Religion has nothing to do with Science. In fact, religion has no place in a school. It is not a 'subject'. If there are folks that would like it to be, there is no problem making it an elective class in Middle and High school. Whatever.

Of course not. For one thing, there are hundreds upon hundreds of Creation stories - not just the christian one. So, allowing one must necessarily allow the rest...

No. Religion is not science and it should not be taught as a science. Not creationism either. Its not science

the facts of life should be taught, the fact is we ourselves are the teachers.

Einstein is reported to have said “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Might be a good idea to subject religions to the searing heat of truth established by verfiable and irrefutable science (not hypotheses or theories no matter how widely or popularly supported). This will burn through all acquired falsehood. What will be left, if anything, will be indestructible truth. “And say: Truth has (now) arrived, and falsehood perished: for falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish." HQ 17:81 Also scientific facts are truths and “Say, "The truth is from your Lord": (then) let him believe who will, and let him who will, reject” HQ 18:29 When Europe did the opposite, subject science to religion, it declined into the dark ages. When Islam subjected science to religion it brought about a phenomenal development in knowledge and progress in every field (see http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2009/Features/WTX054193.htm for further details.) By sharing the fruits of its endeavours it pulled Europe out of the backwaters, made Spain a centre of learning and a jewel of Europe that it never had been before and has never been since and left a legacy that is still with us in the number system we all use (the Arabic numerals) and in many of our everyday words. (see http://www.1001inventions.com/words/)

Some of the greatest scientist who have ever lived (Einstein for example) have said that they can't see how it would be possible for God not to have created this. Religion means re-binding. Most religions teach that there was some separation between God and man (the fall) and so we need to be re-bound with God. Religion is supposed to show us the way.

No, because it's not science. Letting it masquerade as science just perpetuates ignorance and idiocy. Sorry for the strong word choice there, but it just really annoys me. Honestly, doesn't it get taught enough in homes, churches, and the media without it corrupting science in what is SUPPOSED to be an enlightened age?

"God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion" -- Superintendent Chalmers (The Simpsons)

I believe it should be offered, not mandated. Are we talking high school / college / what ??

No. Because it isn't science. It's as simple as that.

Absolutely not. It's not science. Do churches allow scientists to come in on Sunday and teach a

No. Faith is faith and fact is fact. No objection to either, but it's rather like teaching Math and English Lit at the same time.

Nope. Science should be taught in science class, religion amd creationism should be taught in religious studies. I feel that makes sense :)

I could argue about this for days, but I will keep it simple: No. Religion =/= Science. You wouldn't teach home economics in a government class, so why teach religion in a science class? And if we teach religion as science, that undermines the value of both to the human experience.

No, and students should be aware of what subject they are being taught, despite what their parents or ministers tell them. "This is science, students, not religion or faith, or politics. This is a cell, a living organism, and this is how it works". "This is our solar system, galaxy, universe. This is what it looks like and this is how it behaves. It is trillions of years old. It does not matter if you think it is less. It behaves the same way." "This is how things are and how things work. I don't care a hoot how you, your parents, or your Sunday school teacher think the "purpose" of it all is. This is how it is." If science teachers are not allowed to say this, we may as well stop teaching science at all in the public schools. I am a person of faith. But, the subjects of science and religion are two different things. Preachers and others should not expect the public schools to do their job for them. Teachers are paid little enough for what they do. If I were a science teacher and I was told to teach the local preacher's version of "creationism", I would expect to be paid his salary as well as the one I contracted for. And if fair is fair, then all versions of the creation should be taught. There are hundreds. Every people has its own creation story. The Genesis version is only one. And who is going to teach them all? See how ridiculous it becomes?

Absolutely not. If it is taught in science class, it should have been found via, and verified by, the scientific method. Its called "Science Class." Teach religious myths in Social Studies and/or Literature.

Sure, the day science can be tought in church