Creationist/ID Education should be allowed

Hi OpticalIllusions and welcome to the forum,I think you have started from a number of misaprehensions of what the Theory of evolutionis and what it is not. The Big Bang is not a part of the Theory of Evolution, which is concerned with biology, not cosmology. When we say "evolution" the word can have many different meanings. In the context of a message board like this, where evolution proponents engage with creationists, when someone says "evolution" they're normally talking about biological evolution. Nothing to do with the Big Bang. The phrase "Big Bang" is just a nickname. Originally it was a derisory nickname given to the theory by its opponents. The actual evwent described by the Big Bang Theory was not merely a "bang" in any normal sense of the word. No such events take place on earth today. I think you're contradicting yourself there. You want kids to be taught only what we know for sure, but you also want them to be taught about a god that you admit science "can't figure out". Also, I think you have misunderstood what the term "theory" means in science. It does not mean that scientists doubt the theory's veracity. theories are not preomoted to the status of laws when the evidence reaches some threshold. The term "theory" is the highest accolade science has for an idea.Mutate and Survive

Science is about understanding the universe. Trouble is, the universe is a big, complex place. It's not possible to study everything at once. That's why scientists take smaller subjects and examine them in detail. Biology is one of those subjects and evolution is a part of biology. the Big Bang is not biology. In trying to force an understanding of both the Big Bang and biological evolution as if they were one subject, you're making both of them harder to understand, not easier. Well yes; creationism, although I would hesitate to call it science. Evolution is perfectly compatible with many forms of creationism. One could simply assume that a god (or gods) created life and that then, that life proceeded to evolve.Now I don't think that's a good idea or anything, but certainly evolution is compatible with that scenario. One could posit any number of scenarios whereby life came to exist. It doesn't really effect evolution. All we need know is that life began to exist, then began to evolve.I would also note that we can observe evolution taking place in the here-and-now. No amount of speculation about origins could possibly trump those real-world observations. Or our understanding of them is wrong. Well as Crashfrog notes, it's not a very helpful label. It's actually pretty unhelpful. Further, the Big Bang theory goes a lot deeper than just a label. It is built upon multiple observations and a very profound understanding of physics. Don't confuse the label with the theory itself. Both of those pairs fit each other well. Only one pairing has the advantage of being true.I don't get it though; what is it that you think makes evolution and the Big Bang a poor match for each other? Where's the beef?Mutate and Survive