It's not really up to our government to teach our children to believe in something divine. And certainly shouldn't be taught in a science. My solution to this would be to introduce it in a philosophy class, that can be taken as an elective so children have the choice not to learn it. You know, like all those Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, Coptic, Buddhist, etc... children.
One of the arguments given in this debate, that hasn't been addressed is the validity of the scientific method used by creationists and proponents of intelligent design. The question in this scientific theory that is posed is "Could there be a God" or some other phrase with a word like "may" or "can."
The problem then, with wording a question like this - a question you have to make a hypothesis for, and test for - is that it is not a definite answer. They only way to prove it is to disprove science, and, as already stated, you cannot prove something by disproving the other.
A really simple example I remember learning in one of my math classes went along the lines of this:
A equals a pizza, and b equals a circle, and c equals a triangle.
If A is B then C doesn't even come into play.
If A is not B, does that mean A is C?
No. While C is an option out there, there is nothing that directly links one absolute to the other.
In other words, If A is existence, and B is evolution, and C is creationism,
If A is not B, that does not mean that A is C.
I mean, I can also point out that it also doesn't mean Not B means A is not C.
Of course, I'm going to abandon this now, because my limited memory of these sentences has come to an end.
Another problem with the scientific method used by the creationists is that you can't test for God without defining who or what God is, and how to quantify His presence.
There's no control, only variable. I say that because there are no specific lab conditions in which these say 5 people in the room may not already be being prayed for, or prayed against. Scientists can't come out and say "These 5 people cannot be prayed for!" because that's an infringement on my rights. There's no way to disprove God, so you therefor can't test for God. It's actually one of the basis, if I remember my biology and high school, and grade school science classes correctly, of the scientific method. You can't prove what can't be disproved. Maybe I have that wrong? I'm sure someone more scientifically adept could fix up my false arguments and make them work better.
And because you can't test it, you can't formulate a theory.
Now, as already mentioned, a theory is not just some idea. Those or more philosophical notions on how life works. In terms of science, a theory must be tested over and over again, and these tests must not disprove your hypothesis. Only then can is be a theory.
The theories that are out there are not fixed truths, but rather ideas that have not yet been disproved.
Furthermore, I know this is an old article, but it's one of my favorite things to read regarding Creationism:
I can't follow my train of thought anymore, so I'm ending it here.