As I note below, the issue (for the reasonable segment of folks; there certainly are a share of people who want to eliminate the concept, but that's not me) is the insistence of Creationists on teaching their material in science curricula. Since it's not only completely unsupported by scientific evidence, but the theory of evolution (and of abiogenesis, which is the ACTUAL scientific theory dealing with the creation of life) IS supported by scads of evidence, this is a problem.
If supporters of Creationism (ID, etc.) want to teach it as literature, myth, or religious belief, that's fine. But science classes are right out. So is any kind of state support (e.g., the advertising money for a Creation museum provided by Mike Huckabee when he was governor of Arkansas). If a Creation Museum is fully privately supported and in no way purports to be scientific (i.e., claims that "this is all belief with no scientific evidence"), then why not? The one that, for example, Scalzi (and others) mocked didn't do that -- it claimed that theirs was the one and only Truth, and that evolution and abiogenesis were discredited, which is WHY they were mocked.
Shorter me: dglenn and kathrynt's point about labeling it correctly.
(no subject)
If supporters of Creationism (ID, etc.) want to teach it as literature, myth, or religious belief, that's fine. But science classes are right out. So is any kind of state support (e.g., the advertising money for a Creation museum provided by Mike Huckabee when he was governor of Arkansas). If a Creation Museum is fully privately supported and in no way purports to be scientific (i.e., claims that "this is all belief with no scientific evidence"), then why not? The one that, for example, Scalzi (and others) mocked didn't do that -- it claimed that theirs was the one and only Truth, and that evolution and abiogenesis were discredited, which is WHY they were mocked.
Shorter me: