One is also led to question if we teach creationism as an alternative to evolution then why not include all the other myths worldwide that have there own views of the origin of species?I think it would be better to place it in a different subject where it is seen for the historic value it has but we cannot teach it as a serious means of inquiry since it does not stand on its own without ignoring large amounts of evidence.You say kids are cyring out to understand what scientists think is wrong with creation,yet shouldn't we answer them by showing that it is not scientists but evidence that show creationism to be hollow?
buzsaw Yes and at the time it was no longer in favour due to its lack of evidential support it,too,was relegated to the boneyard and even though it continues to surface for reasons other than evidence it is nonetheless no where near a science.All other myths are seen as such and even they to a degree are also purported to be true by other segments of society.We have flat earth proponents,astrology is huge worldwide,new age believers have all sorts of wonders that could be given equal time so wouldn't it be simpler to just place it where it belongs? Until such time as they can devise a decent evidence based,peer reviewed,experimentally confirmed method of showing us how they can support their view and does not simply try to poke holes in the standard scientific realm then they too can take a back seat to real investigations of the world.