Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

I think students should be taugt about all major ideas and belief systems, if you cut out one set of ideas on, say, how the universe and life came to be, and only teach say Darwinian evolution and such as being truth, isn't it the same as censorship? Students should be taught opposing arguments, otherwise we'll raise a generation of people who don't htink for themselves and accept whatever idea get's shoved down tgheir throats first which is what that is. It's no different in theory or practice from what the Amish do.

ok, I see your point, I should have been more clear. What I mean is, Social Studies, Higher level English classes, History, etc., should expose students to the teachings of all these major belief systems. Teach what you want in science, but allow schools to teach other ideas, and if anything a student or teacher feels should be brought up or discussed that would normally be missed, then have at it. I have an English teacher who gives mostly equal credibility and regard to most all belief systems and ideas on life, and he remains neutral on those matters, but let's us decide for ourselves what we think rather than telling us that "This is how you should believe, and how you should live and that's it." I like that and I think that's how it should be.

Who's fact, your fact? What if oyur fact is wrong? I understand you know what your talking about and everything, but what if SOME of the evidence is wrong, or what if, properly translated and interpreted, one creation story is true? To say that they are all wrong without any other possibility is foolish because, unless oyu know everything there is to know, then you can never be certain. There's plenty of logical arguments for as wel las against creation (depending on the story) as wel las plenty of evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. I'm no expert but I've researched hte subject in enough depth to have some input, and from my research, it's clear that creation is certainly possible, and can and does even fit in with science, as far as the Judeo Christian point of view is concerned.
When I have more time I'll go more into depth on that topic, I'm at school right now so I can't.

Wow! I'm amazed. You people are completely narrowminded and unopen to any other possibilities. You wouldn't accept creation if God came down in a chariot of fire and told oyu you have been all wrong. You are utterly biased behind change.
Explain to me why science and creation are mutually exlusive? Are you saying we should either believe science or creation? Not both? That's impossible considering I believe both. I have found no reason not to. I thin k much of the bible and such is symbolic and metaphorical, because of that right there I have no reason not to believe.
Don't judge my level of knowledge ok, you don't know how much I've researched aznd read up on this subject. Don't claim to know what you don't know.

What fossil aevidence? You mean a complete lack of transition forms? How aqbout the fact that all but one or two of the "primitive man" fossils were proven to be frauds.Anyway, by creation, I don't at all believe in a young earth, I don't take genesis to be literal azt all really. I think the idea with that is to teach people important truths about life. I pretty much believe in evolution within a species but not from one to another. There is no hard evidence that I know of, for that, htough correct me if I'm wrong. There are also no observed example's of that sort of evolution happening in real time.
WE know macro evolution just doesn't account for it without divine guidence, and micro evolution is pretty weak theory. Again correct me if I'm wrong.

Well heck, now I don't know what think. I guess I have been misinformed-maybe-Ii don't know. I'm at least trying to leanr and expand my knowledge and find the truth.

Fair enough. I need to clarify, I take much of the bible to be symbolic and metaphorical, with the goal of making the principles and teachings simple to understand, not word for word records of histrory (except in some cases). I do take a few things literal (like the deity of christ) but much of it, mainly the beginnings of genesis and a few other parts, I take to be symbolic. Has anyone read any of Gerald Shroeders work? The Jewish physicist.