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

What does any of that have to do with

A. The court rulings, and

B. The repeated attempts to get a different ruling?

Quote all the statistics you want.

Because the courts and scientists are smarter than those parents and teachers.

It was not until Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), a similar case in Louisiana, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court that creation science was ruled unconstitutional at the federal level, which resulted in its removal from public school science classes nationwide. The reaction from the creationist forces would be to create the new concept of intelligent design specifically in order to circumvent this ruling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_v._Waters

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

What took you so long, KFC?

From the same reference

taken out of context.  Where's the rest of the paragraphs these comments were in? I read the whole article.  Of course education would be negatively related to belief in creationism when all you're being taught is evolution and creation whenever mentioned is bashed.  Instead of commenting on what I brought to the table you had to run and pick out a sentence or two to make your belief look good? 

Telling. 

Anytime you take a text out of context you make a pretext. 

nothing else to do I guess. 

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

I don't get your comment Daiwa? 

I have no problem with having both taught in schools. Both have to do with origins.  So teach both.   Most creationists like me have no problem.  Teach both.  Let's not indoctrinate, let's educate and let the kids decide.  It's the other side who has a very big issue over this...like Infidel. 

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.

You can teach Creationism, Hinduism, and about Smurfs in sociology class or wherever such things belong.

But religion is a private thing, not to be promoted and taught by a secular state.

Anyone who voted for teaching any religion in public schools should be forced to accept that we throw a die at the end to find out which religion to teach. Personally, I find the Hindu creation story most appealing. Let's replace biology with that.

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.

Only one side is adament that only one side be taught.  The "other side" like me believes both should be taught.  So in that case only one side really has the issue.  Why not put both theories out there? 

I'm not talking about teaching religion.  I'm talking about teaching origins.  Like the studies keep showing teaching creation (origins) is not considered religion but another theory just like evolution is a theory.  Many, like me, believe the evolutionary theory when it comes to origins is just another religion but wrapped up in the guise of Science. 

Anyhow like I keep saying science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive and work quite nicely together.  It's only when you get to the evolutionary theory of origins we get into heated debates because it's there we have differences. 

From a religious standpoint I do believe that Satan is very good at wrapping up packages nice and neat to make it look good.   Anything that will take us away from believing in a creator is the name of the game. 

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. 

And yet here she is again, hoping for a different result.

yes, and the debate goes on.