US states consider laws allowing Creationism to be taught by science teachers

[Classic Conservative]

This is nonsense.  Evolution is a demonstrable fact, supported by numerous fields of study from genetics to physiology to paleontology.  Speciation has been observed in the laboratory, and comparative analysis of endogenous retroviruses in our DNA strongly points to shared common ancestry of humans and other primates over the past few million years.  

The only honest argument for creationism is for one to reject all of this evidence a priori because one uses a Bayesian prior of 1 for a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation account, and as such no amount of evidence could possibly change their mind.  Needless to say, this mindset is not scientific and thus should not be in a science class.  The whole point of the scientific method is to formulate models that approximate reality, and these models are derived on the basis of experimentation and observation; if these observations or results contradict a model (and these aberrations can be replicated), that model must be modified to fit the new data.  Creationism is by definition unfalsifiable, makes no testable, specific predictive claims, and in the minds of those who hold to it, cannot be changed based on new evidence.   Reliance on revelation from religious texts automatically excludes such viewpoints from the domain of science, even if they are true (which in this case it obviously is not).

-I didn't realize you are an atheist, RFayette.

I am not an atheist (as should be obvious).  My point was that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that a literal interpretation of the Bible with respect to Genesis 1 is simply untenable.  Furthermore, I pointed out that religion and science are different domains and we shouldn't mix them, and I contend that using the Bible to uncover scientific truths in an attempt to override science is rather unwise - research, not revelation, should guide questions in the natural sciences concerning origins.  The reason for this is obvious - if we simply use the Bible without looking at external evidence from the natural world, we would end up believing the Earth is 6000 years old as Bishop Usher did.  However, observation has shown that there are innumerate pieces of evidence form different fields which contradict this finding.  Therefore, continuing to hold this belief not only is inaccurate from a scientific POV but also has theological implications - most notably, that God is  a trickster, who plants layers of dinosaur fossils well below any human fossils across the world, and yet somehow history began with the first humans.  Scripture teaches clearly that God is not the author of deception, so it's wrong to have such an interpretation that would imply as such.  

This isn't to say science has all the answers; by all means, I certainly don't hold to that.  Rather, it's important not to mix science and religion, or we'll run into problems.  Furthermore true statements which are unfalsifiable or cannot be tested scientifically should not, by definition, be in a science class. 

I remember the days when you were a young earth creationist, that feels like an eternity ago.