Evolution and Creationism should both be taught in public schools

Intelligent Design and Evolution both attempt to explain the origins of life an the universe. In that sense, whether ID is a science is not important. However, you've raised the point. ID started as, not a belief, but a hypothesis. As did Evolution. Evolution, however, is apparently backed up by empirical data. Much of this data has only surfaced in recent years, yet Evolution has been taught in many schools since before the Scopes trial. The vast amount of data that scientists lean on when they say Evolution is a fact did not exist then. However, it was still taught in schools; then as now not as theory, but as fact. In an ideal system, both would be taught as theory and the students would not have anyone's viewpoint forced upon them. It is fallacious to say that teaching ID--as a theory--in public schools infringes on the students' Constitutional rights, as some detractors (to your credit, you haven't) have said, when to teach evolution as a verifiable, undeniable fact is not. You say, "Education is supposed to be about objective truth." You set that in opposition to my statement that the public school system should reflect the views of the public that pays for it. This is an interesting statement. Your objective truth is like universal truth, correct? Truth that is generally or universally accepted? You throw out the idea that education should be based on the whims of the public, and say they change over time. What determines objective truth? General consensus? General consensus changes just like the whims of the public. It was an "objective truth" in the middle ages that the world was flat. It was an "objective truth" before Darwin that God created the universe. It is an "objective truth" in today's scientific community that life spontaneously combusted billions of years ago. You say that education based on the "whims" of the public would have absurd consequences. You are right. However, I don't think Creationism/Intelligent Design/Monotheism is really a "whim." If it is, it's been going on for a while. Since man created/evolved and became self-aware, in fact. Indeed, if anything, Evolution is a "whim." It is only in the since The Origin of Species was published in 1859 that the idea has even existed. Who determines objective truth? Why is it different than a whim? Well, it is, I assume mandated by the government in the public school setting. Well, who appoints the government? We do. The people of the United States do. By extension, then, we mandate objective truth in public schooling. It comes to the same thing as the "whims" of the public. Whether ID/Creationism is a science is utterly irrelevant. Evolution has transcended science in some areas, whereas ID has transcended its base as a belief. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe schools teach more than science. And the science they teach explains how things work, and how they came into being. It is not pure, investigative science based on the Scientific Method. Boiled down, it is to educate students about how and why the universe started. Both Evolution and Creationism do that, and many Americans believe both, AND HAVE DONE SO FOR YEARS. If their belief in Creationism is a whim, what is their belief in evolution? Evolution claims to have all the evidence, but that simply isn't true. It may be supported by some empirical evidence, but there are gaping holes. For example, where are the missing links we've heard so much about? I mean, we know about the Neanderthals, but what about something between an animal and a vegetable? No? Well... Sorry. This isn't a debate about Evolution. I'm not a scientist. However, I read Francis Collins book, The Language for God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. I won't try to summarize his arguments, but they are very well put together. You could do worse than to read it. To say that Creationism is not supported by any of the "observable phenomena" is fallacious. As it is to say that is is supported by all of it. The same applies to Evolution. I would go more in-depth about Creationism, but the debate is not strictly about creationism either. I'm not making a radical proposal here. Before Evolution, Creationism was taught in all schools. It's not something complicated and untested. It has been tested far more and far longer than Evolution. But you deny it any place in the public school. This seems to me a ignorant position, even a self-contradictory one. You base your conclusion that only Evolution should be taught in schools on "objective truth," and say that Creationism/ID is only a "whim." Objective truth, as I have proven, changes over time because it is, at the heart of it, an extended whim. As I said, it was objective truth for centuries that the world was flat. It is interesting to me that you base your conclusion almost solely, in this age of relativism, on the base of objective, absolute truth. Who determines objective truth? Why is it different than a whim? Well, it is, I assume mandated by the government in the public school setting. Well, who appoints the government? We do. The people of the United States do. By extension, then, we mandate objective truth in public schooling. It comes to the same thing as the "whims" of the public. In the end, it may never happen, but teaching some form of ID/Creationism in public school is not really such a revolutionary proposal. I think it's absurd to teach only one viewpoint when a significant fraction of Americans disagree with it completely. It shouldn't matter that Creationism doesn't have as much of a scientific base as Evolution. We, the people should determine what is taught in schools, not the scientific elite.