Creationism should not be taught in biology class

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out." -Richard Dawkins Biology is an important part of basic high school curriculum, not only for students who chose career paths in this direction, but for everyone else as well. A well informed population is a boon. We do our students and our communities a disservice when we take time away from the study of life to "teach controversies" which do not exist within the scientific community. These issues can be dealt with in debate class, or the churches. Creationism, Intelligent Design and the like are not science and should not be taught in a science class. To do so would confuse students who are not yet versed on the basics of biology and yet expected to argue for or against it's merits. Definitions of Terms Creationism: Usually a term used to describe the Christian creation story. This can also be applied to any religious creation story in this debate. Taught (teach): To instruct a student Biology: The study of life (1) "Teach the Controversy" The Discovery Institute claimed that it was important for all students to be taught varying points of view in regard to evolution. One must consider that the scientific community is at a resounding consensus when it comes to evolution. Their main concern was not the actual teaching of science but to counteract what they saw as a "materialist world view" which, in their opinion, subverted traditional JudeoChristian ethics. (Wedge Document) The controversy was between the scientific community and a particular group of Christians, not within the scientific community. This was played out in the Dover Trial. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Because this was not a political debate, not a scientific controversy, there is no reason to teach it in biology classes, where students are expected to learn biology, not the highlights of a debate. (2) "Church and State" Because we do encourage freedom of speech in our country, there is nothing stopping local church from addressing their concerns on the pulpit. If parents would like their children to hear "both sides," then let them do so within their proper contexts. Biology class deals in science. Religion deals in belief. Let the other sides make their case in private religious institutions where they are free to make whatever claim they want without legislative restriction. There must be, however, restrictions in public schools given that one religion can not be favored over another, or given any official mandate at all because of the First Amendment. These are public institutions running on taxes levied on all citizens in the interest of providing a good education for all students in the community. If the "controversy" must be addressed in public schools then let it be addressed in a debate class where it belongs. After all, this is what a controversy is. (3) Chaos Theory If the "controversy" is taught, biology class will degenerate into an uninformed debate session without the benefit of formal debates' structure. How in the world is a student who has not even passed the course supposed to understand the underpinnings of the subject enough to decide whether s/he is for or against evolution? It speaks to the paranoia of Creationist parents when they will not even let the child learn opposing points of view. Why not let the child learn what science has to say without pretending there is a major controversy where there is not one? This would only result in lost study time and confusion. In conclusion, you can see that my three fold objections are clearly tethered to a non-controversy assertion. I will accept any counter claims from the negation in regard to social impacts of evolution etc., with the understanding that wen they make a claim they will hold burden of proof for that claim regardless of their negation status. Thank you! I look forward to a good debate.