The prevailing scientific theory should be taught in science class. Creationsim/Intelligent Design should have their place in classes such as Theology, Philosophy, and Comparative Religions. But let us turn the tables for a moment. What if some rabid scientists started demanding that evolution be taught in theology class? I imagine that there would be a sizable amount of outrage. The truth is, that would actually have some merit.

In the play "Inherit the Wind", the moment that Brady (the character based on William Jennings Bryan) admitted that the days described in Genesis need not be 24 hour days, the tables were turned. After all, Genesis says the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. With that 24 hour restriction set aside, Drummond (the character based on Clarence Darrow) could rightly speculate that those "days" could be a million or a billion years in length. Why can't evolution be seen as part of the miracle of creation? does the fact that something took millions of years make it any less miraculous? And why stop there? For me, Adam and Eve is a symbolic story about an actual event, the dawn of consciousness. A & E were ashamed because they suddenly became self-aware. Somewhere in prehistoric times, some caveman or woman first gained that self-consciousness which sets us apart from animals. Their name may or may not have been Adam or Eve. For me, literalism limits our understanding. It turns faith into a house of cards: If one thing is questioned, it all collapses. Faith should not be so fragile.

If you disagree, it would be nice to know what it is you disagree with!!!

It is no more harmful than the trash we call rapp today!!!
Hey I have no problem with Schools teaching evolution as a theory just as teaching Creation. They are two theories that should be given time. What ticks me off is that schools will not teach Creation because it's from the Bible and is part of what the world calls Religion!!!! But if you really think about it Evolution has it's own cult following that clearly and unwittingly expresses it’s dislike to anything that is Christian! The school curriculum should give as much time to the creation theory as to the evolution theory!!!! (as to any valid theory!!!) Both should be given an equal amount of teaching! Just because something is from a religion or belief doesn’t negate the right for it to be taught. Shoot most of the constitution is based in and around the Bible, but do we remove that. I think you know that answer!!!!

You can teach someone to evolve? That IS big news! And potentially very helpful.

It's kind of like French, if you don't teach it, that won't make it go away.

I think it's important that people keep in mind: the word "theory" has a very different meaning in the scientific world than it does elsewhere. Gravity is a theory. Should we wait until we have concrete, irrefutable proof that Newton was correct before we teach our kids what gravity is all about?

I can't think of a surer or more efficient way to stifle progress and innovation than to deny our children knowledge. If we stop teaching evolution, our kids won't even be able to have this debate.

I personally don't abide by it. I think a person can appreciate science and its contributions as a whole and still weed out the junk. I know some on here just can't fathom it and think it's completely ridiculous, but I will make no apologies for what I personally believe. Evolution is a theory (which simply means opinion). And before anyone starts jumping up to say, "Well, creationism is a theory, too", let's just say I have weighed the two together, and creation and intelligent design simply makes more sense. Nothing happens by accident or on its own, as evolution implies. Something or somebody is behind everything that works in this world.

I tend to think that the Bible would complement science rather than oppose it.

In University I wrote a 40 page paper on evolution. I could have easliy written a million page paper on the subject as I find it kind of fascinating. It was after about six months of intensive research on the subject that I no longer believe in it. This is just a very very small excert from what I wrote just in case any body cares. Otherwise disregard. Im sure I'll get a lot of disagreements and comments about this, But a) this is just a tiny part, and
b)believe what ever you want, its your opinion and your entitled to it.

Science is now pointing AWAY from Darwins theories. As Larry Hatfield stated in Science Digest:
"Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities…however, many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science. "
The Miller -Urey experiment has been redone under correct circumstances this time, and proven false. Using correct atmospheric components; recreating the Miller-urey experiment creates formaldehyde. Not life.
Darwins tree of life has been proven wrong by fossil records. Ironically, the very fossils that Darwin thought would redeem him. The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century, and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.Interpretation is difficult due to a
limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical
signatures left in Cambrian rocks.
Homology -homology is simply taken as prima facie evidence of descent, and design is excluded out of hand. Asserting that something is objectively true implies that it is based on empirical evidence, not merely assumed a priori on philosophical grounds. A methodological exclusion of
design-based explanations constitutes a limitation on one's science, not a description of
objective reality. If evolutionary biologists want to show that the actual mechanism of
evolution does not involve intelligent design, they cannot merely exclude the possibility a
priori, but must take the more difficult approach of proposing and corroborating a
naturalistic alternative.

I'm neither arguing for or against Religious implications for life on earth. I am merely trying to state as briefly as possible (and I apologize for rambling on for so long) That its SCIENCE that is going to put the final nail in the coffin of evolution. I think that other scientific theories should be put forth considering where the evidence is pointing. However, the question is whether or not teaching evolution is harmful, and I think not, but schools should be teaching more solid science and biology. Theories without conflicting evidence.

Still, I think it important to note that its science that causes me to disagree with this theory. As science puts itself to the test. This one just didn't happen to hold up under scrutiny.

We need to make this subject a little friendlier to the non-believers. Once there was this Amoeba, it evolved into a human with testacles and was named Adam....

Out of loneliness, he then pulled out one of his ribs which evolved into another human with uterus, whom we named Eve.

Promoting science over superstition is always a good thing. Always.

Having torn into this on another list I won't go in as much depth.

Evolution is a scientific theory and as the accepted scientific theory it should be taught exclusively in Science classes.

Creationism, intelligent design is a religious and cultural belief, and therefor has nothing to do with science. Want your children to learn it teach it yourself.

You don't have to believe in this-people who are insecure about their religious faith are the one's who are against this!

I don't care what religion you belong to. In my opinion, you should be aware of every single explanation of creation, or whatever you want to call it.

Hell, after studying evolution, I think it's a joke, but everyone should be aware of it.

I don't see why this is an issue to anyone, outside of the stubborn, moronic Biblethumpers out there who prefer to cling to the superstitions, old wives' tales, fables and ridiculous attempts at explanations in that roll of toilet paper known as The Bible than face empirical fact. Or worse yet, those dimbulbs like the GOP Vice Presidential candidate who support the absolutely inane and delusional concept of intelligent design. Yeah, I believe that the Flintstone's dog was named Dino, too. What's dangerous about these weirdos is that they insist on placing their mentally retarded perceptions of the ascent of man in educational curriculum, thereby poisoning the minds of any youngster unfortunate enough to hear anything about this crap. It is much better that children are taught to trust science and consider so-called Christian "teachings" for exactly what they are: factually inaccurate nonsense cooked up by ignorant ancients who were bent on the social and mind control of whatever schnooks bought into their nonsense.

When I listen to some of the arguments by people who vehemently oppose the concept and theory of evolution, I begin to think they have a point.

After all, they often provide in their own persons strong evidence that they haven't evolved. 

The theory of evolution best explains our biological origins, why shouldn't we teach it in schools? Human existence is a work in progress, an evolution; it is built upon the subsequent developments of the past. History, politics, law, technologies have developed as such over thousands of years. Todays social system is a product of developments in many fields. Therefore, it makes sense that humans have developed biologically over time as the environment has changed. This isn't an attempt to repudiate the existence of God, this has nothing to do with the fact that He's a "prime mover" in the process; merely this is about establishing and explaining our origins.

Just because we evolved to where we are today doesnt suggest that God didnt create us special, indeed, I believe that creationists put too much emphasis on the notion that we are somehow biologically special, that we were set aside and created by osmosis. We know that this is not the way that the natural world works. Evolution doesn't suggest that humanity is haphazard nor does it cheapen the value of life. Christians should remember that our bodies are essentially shells. In an eternal sense, it doesnt really count for much.

In my view, there isnt much debate here between creationists and evolution. The only thing that evolution suggests is that we are a product of past events and evolutions throughout the history of this material realm. Our observations of the universe, and indeed, even the Creation story as articulated in the Bible, would indicate that. There is nothing to suggest that the world was created in 7 days or anything like that. Each day represented a different stage in the development of the universe and subsequent to that the development of our planet. We have to get off literalism like this, for really thats good in any instance. Remember what, I believe, the prophet Isaiah said, "A day is to the Lord can be many years." The issue of time here can be best interpreted as epochs, as the issue of time isnt as material as we believe it to be necessarily. So I believe that we should teach in our schools the best theory that explains our origins. In my view, the debate between creationism and evolution has become way too theological, with an excessive amount of literalism attached to advocates of the so-called creationist theorists.

Teaching of evolution can't hurt anyone who knows God. Nothing can. Lies only hurt if the truth isn't known. If you teach your children of God and they go to school and learn about another theory, they're still gona know the truth when they come home from school. I don't believe it can hurt society, but, I do believe that if they teach that theory they should also teach creation. It's only fair. But then, things aren't always fair.

I think it's very hurtful to society because evolution is a lie from the pits of hell. And someday, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Scientific study requires an element called "observation" to be valid.
Neither intelligent design or evolution can meet this requirement, and neither should be taught as a science. They are both a small amount of evidence augmented by a huge amount of conjecture.
They should not be taught in science class.
Kids should be taught facts, and the fact is, part of society believes in evolution, part of society believes we were created, and part of society believes something that hovers between these two opinions.
Kids should be made aware of both theories, not in science class, but in social studies, where non scientific opinions about anything people believe should be taught.
The big mistake americans make is in making evolution/intelligent design a power struggle between atheists and those who believe we didn't just kind of "happen"
The kids suffer by not being given enough information to be capable of making their choice of what they believe.
Evolution is a theory that should be taught to kids as an opinion. It should not be taught exclusively.

There are tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles, countless research hours, and a long history of exploration and discovery on this subject. An extensive scientific theory has been developed. It is science and must be taught as such.

. . .or ignore science? Aren't American kids behind enough in mathematics and languages as well?

Let me first say that it is wrong not to teach creation and to only teach evolution. The cry against not teaching creation is that to teach creation is indoctrination. Mark Twain tells a story about Huck and Jim (the runaway slave) laying on a raft on the Mississippi and looking up at the stars. Huck says to Jim, "Jim, them stars up there, reckon they just happened or somebody put em there? I reckoned they just happened, but Jim reckoned that somebody put them there." You know what there are only two choices and to teach one to the exclusion of the other is indoctrination. If evolution were true then racism is justifiable. If I feel that my race is the most evolved and I buy into the Hegelian scheme of survival of the fittest then I can justify racism and who is to say that I am wrong. There are many dangers for a society to believe in evolution and this is one of them.

Science backs up this theory very well,despite the pissing and moaning of those who interpret the Garden of Eden as literal history.We have fossils and evidence that many species have evolved,look at the pre-historic proto horses,dogs,fish or cats.If you can accept that THEY evolved,and it's obvious that they did-why deny the fact that we,too,evolved over time into our present state? If the Eden fable were literal,and Adam and Eve had two sons (one of whom was killed) and no daughter-just how did the entire race spring from one family?