Wait? Are you meaning to tell me that creationism isn't banned as science in US public schools? And this thread is about you hoping that someday we can reach the point where it is illegal to teach belief A and not belief B?
Teach beliefs all you want in religious studies. Teach science in science classes.
Cue "evolutionism/darwinism/evolution is a belief/faith".
So, you are trying to refute a legitimate argument by simply citing said argument before I post it? Do you even know what it means to 'believe' something? If the belief in evolution is not a belief, then you are implying that it is an inherent truth that is forced upon humans to know against our own will, that therefore all humans must know it to be an absolute fact. Of course, if that isn't the case, then it is indeed a belief.
Also, a created world would contain science. Science might not be applicable to the supernatural (although can be applied to natural things that are a result of the supernatural), but nobody ever said they were going to teach bible stories in science class.
Do you think that creationists do not believe in cells or atoms? Do you think that a creation driven science class would toss out all things you classify as science? Do you think it would toss out even the grand majority
of things you classify as science? The grand majority of science is accepted by the grand majority of both naturalists and creationists.
Macro-evolution, the big bang, billions of years, and probably a select few smaller subjects are the only things not accepted by most creationists. Meanwhile, like I said, the vast majority of science is
Really, what the difference boils down to is an interpretation of history. How organisms got to the point they are currently at, how the universe got to the point it is currently at, etc. and these beliefs are based off of interpretations of the same evidence. Yet you think that only your
conclusion deserves to be taught as a possibility?
Why not teach both and let the student decide what to believe (it wouldn't really elongate the lessons that much, as once again it would only deal with select sections of the explanation of history)? Why would you not want that? If evolution truly has such an insurmountable amount of evidence, then surely students would choose to accept it the majority of the time, right? Once again, the only difference being taught would be differences in interpretations. Interpretations of which are not true by definition, but rather rely on various evidence that a person chooses to believe.
Of course, you could just scrap interpretations altogether and only teach about what we know because of empirical testable observations made in the present, rather than belief driven interpretations of what we can never know for perfect truth: the past.