Despite creationist or ID outcry, absolutely nothing about evolution dictates atheism. For some it does indeed, but for others like me, evolution is how God created me.

Yes, I believe in God AND evolution. I think that evolution indeed was our maker's way of creating us–randomness, natural selection, all of it. This makes us even more special. I am not concerned that complex processes cannot to be shown to have suddenly appeared. as the Intelligent Design folks desparately have tried but failed to show.

My God's hand is invisible–and works via evolution. But that is just my opinion–just my faith, a gut feeling, I can't prove that, and so neither should I expect that faith, that idea to be taught. Nor should Intelligent Design. ID cannot show any science to back up its claims. But evolution has PLENTY of HIGHLY credible science and rightfully should be taught. I have no problem with creationism and ID being mentioned, but only in passing to understand the issue– but they do not have the basis to demand equal time.

Some folks have had trouble grasping the earth is not flat, nor the center of the universe. I am amused at those who cling to the Bible for science facts because if it is a bestseller. Thinking that being related to other animals is somehow awful and degrading strikes me as just silly, self-centered and close-minded.

Taking Ann's example… it was once agreed on by a greater majority that the earth was flat (and the center of the universe!) … indeed teaching that an alternative to 'fact' and saying the earth was round was even considered un-scientific. If we've digressed to a point of legally decreeing that all students must subscribe to one school of scientific thought and theory, perhaps we should also teach the world is flat again?

Creationism is easily dismissed by the secular sci community and accused of lacking scientific value of a theory at all. However, creationism is transparently compatible with the scientific approach Mary (and apparently Brian) defines for an scientific topic. Creationism makes statements about real people, places, things and events and is NOT supported solely with subjective ideas.

Since the foundations for naturalism and creationism relating the facts together are both supported on some pillars of assumptions, why shouldn't creationism be considered at least as scientific as the other? There is no scientific logic in throwing out one theory's presuppositions over another. Likewise there is nothing scientific in teaching there is no theoretical alternative to a theory.

Before we whether creationism should be taught in schools, we should probably discuss that Microevo(lution) and Macroevo should definitely be taught as seperate ideas. It should be taught there are broad differences and alternatives to the latter. It's ignorant to recognize 'Evolution' as a single scientific theory. Even so, it continues to be taught as 'evolution' and used as an argument against creationism teaching. Did you know that most scientific creationists agree on the support of the theory of microevolution?

The part of the theory that creationists heavily disagree is Macro-Evolution. It, like creationism, is based on scientific principles that at best require blind faith of certain assumptions before a single experiment or test is performed. (I wouldn't argue that due this it's not a theory, but it seems that maybe Mary is saying exactly that?)

I guess the main problem I have would be in the case of the stickers in E. Cobb Georgia. Is evolution 100% indisputable fact? No. Don't we want our children to think, and to challenge everything; to expand their mind? Of course. There are admitted gaps and mysteries involved in evolution, so what's wrong with thinking critically of it? Those who ascribe to religion, especially Christians in this country, are constantly criticized for being close-minded, and yet this is blatantly close-minded of those who worship at the altar of science. They are the establishment and are protecting themselves. This isn't about a fight for truth, this is about one group asserting their dominance over another that they abhor. If it were about truth, then they would welcome challengers. Were religious people trying to stir up trouble and create confusion about this topic like the ruling says? Maybe, maybe not. There's no way for you or any federal judge to know. It's awfully cynical of anyone to think so. I have no idea how a government official can make that ruling, suggesting that they know the motives of these individuals. I think that is unconsitutional.

Ultimately I don't think that Intelligent Design has enough research, fact and science behind it to be taught equally at public schools. However, I am 100% all for making sure all students know that Evolution is not infallible and that considering other possibilities is perfectly alright.