Fifty studies were reviewed that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools. The vast majority found about 90 % of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools. About 90 % of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15 % of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20 % of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. Although the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling élite.

Another survey of nearly 2,400 science students at Ohio State University found 47 % did not believe Darwin’s theory and fully 80 % felt that if Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in public schools, other views including special creation should also be taught.¹² Also, 58 % did not believe that teaching creationism in school amounted to teaching religion, and 41 % concluded that Darwinism did not have a valid scientific foundation.

In the Blank and Anderson survey, 21 % of the secondary science teachers and 57 % of the elementary teachers stated they did not believe Darwin’s theory of evolution was true. Hodgson and Hodgson found 38 % of students at Central Michigan University, and Fuerst found 33 % of students at Ohio State University, did not accept Darwin’s theory of evolution. Blank and Anderson found 88 % of the elementary and 60 % of the secondary science teachers felt that non-Darwin views should be given equal time in class. In the Ohio State University sample, 80 % felt other views besides Darwin’s should be given equal time in the classroom, and 81 % of the Central Michigan University sample held this position. Further 71 % of the elementary teachers and 47 % of the secondary science teachers did not view creationism as religion. Fully 58 % of the Ohio State University sample and 61 % of the Central Michigan University sample did not view creationism as religion. In addition, 64 % of the elementary and 45 % the secondary science teachers felt that the current textbooks should be changed so that they also present creationism. This compares with 62 % of the Ohio State University sample and 60 % of the Central Michigan University sample.

This research raises the important question: Why does so much opposition exist in the US courts and among scientists to teaching both theories of origins when, according to all extant surveys, the majority of not only parents but also often teachers are in favour of the two-model approach? Also, if most parents and teachers support this approach, why does a single model dominate in public schools?

My surveys found that the majority of students were exposed only to evolutionary naturalism in their biology classes, and when creationism was mentioned it was often ridiculed. Evolution dominates partly because it is the only position discussed in most textbooks. The reason often given is the belief that separation of Church and State requires a one-sided presentation of evolution, yet fully 72 % of the 578 lawyers that returned a survey believed the First Amendment did not prohibit the teaching creationism in US public schools.³¹ In the rare instances where creation is mentioned, it is usually to argue against it. A two-model position is much more effective from both an educational and pedagogical standpoint because teaching by contrasts helps to understanding the source of knowledge and aids in comprehending information.³²

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp

None of those say "as science". Teach it all you want. Just don't try again to pass it off as science.

From the same reference

But when your only context is the Bible....?

None of those studies matter. If a majority of Americans voted for teaching Hinduism as science in public schools it would also be wrong. In fact, if a 98% majority insisted on teaching that Smurfs are real in public schools it would still be against the law to teach such a religion.

This is solely about teaching science, not religion, in science class and about not teaching religion, at all, in state-funded schools.

You can teach Creationism (or any other religion) in Sunday school as much as you like, but not in state-funded schools and not in science class.

First, I was just ribbin' on ya a little.

To suggest only one side has a 'big issue' with this is disingenuous at best.

Amen.

Not true.

Only one side is adamant that creationism not be taught as science in public schools.  There is no objection to it being taught per se, even in public schools as long as it's not taught as science.  Private religious schools are free to teach it in whatever class they wish and you're free to teach it at home.

Only one side demands that creationism be taught as science in public schools.

But we've had this discussion before. 

yes, and the debate goes on. 

no, I just told you you can teach origins without getting into religion.  You can teach it as an alternative theory like evolution is just a theory.  You can just take the bible as historical literature and teach the creation part in Genesis and not even get into religion at all. 

LIke I said Daiwa...the debate rages on. 

All those religions you posted above all believe in some sort of outside force that created mankind that we call God and some call ID.   They are pretty much in agreement.   That's not what the difference in religions are. That usually involves alot more than just a theory on origins because they would all agree.   That's why I said it can be taught without teaching about worshipping God.  So it has nothing to do with anyone demanding religion being taught in Science Class. 

Remember creation was taught in public schools for many many years before the Scopes Trial with no adverse affects.  Can you say the same about evolution being taught in school sans creation? 

and just for your information...I am against teaching religion in public schools!  I believe it should be taught in the homes and churches. 

Yes, you can. But you cannot do it if the "origin" is a "creator".

Belief in a creator is religion.

Incidentally, evolution doesn't teach the "origin". But I told you that before.

(I am still trying to find an essay written by someone denouncing evolution who actually understood that evolution is not about "origins". "Origins of species" is like "origins of differences" not like "origins of things that can be different".)

No, you cannot. A belief in a creator is not a theory.

But if you find something else that actually qualifies as "just a theory", I'd support teaching it. Anything that doesn't require belief in a creator would do. (And no, it doesn't matter if the "creator" is a god or another created being.)

Actually, alternative theories to Darwin's evolution are being taught at school. I learned Lamarckian inheritance as well. (But I also learned how it was ultimately discredited because it didn't fit the facts.)

THAT is religion.

Genesis wasn't written by peopel who observed it happen, it was written by Moses based on what he was told.

I totally accept using the Bible as historical literature for the time periods where it was actually written by people who saw what was happening, but not for time periods thousands of years before that written down as hearsay no matter the source.

You had to say that so you can justify wanting Creationism taught as science instead of religion.

Belief in a creator of any type is already religion. It cannot be taught in science class. (And since the US are a secular country it cannot be taught in religion class either since there cannot be a religion class.)

Explaining how life branches into different species over time (with or without a creator) is science.

Belief in a creator (or no creator) of any kind is religion.

I don't see why this is difficult.