Harry,
I'm not suggesting that Creationism is taught as a theory to be taken seriously or even to have kids tested on their knowledge of it. What I am saying is that The Scientific Method, where every idea is open to negative verification (Including ones that stand up to daily observation such as Gravity or Evolution) should be taught, and that Creationism is a good example for teaching this method. Other real-world examples of varying silliness could be Flat-World Theory, Heat-as-a-Liquid Theory (that underpinned the development of the steam-engine), Earth as Centre of the Universe Theory. All were considered as 'fact' at the time. Gallileo's story is perhaps the best known - and should be taught as part of this too. Newton's laws of motion were considered as fact until Einstein realised that they wouldn't stand up to near speed of light conditions. And Einstein's theories don't hold up at the Quantum level. The truth about Science is that there are no facts.
Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with living in a world with no facts. Newton's laws of motion work perfectly well for us whenever we are building a car, or a bridge or applying them to most situations here on earth or in space. They are a useful model to describe the workings of the universe, but they are not fact.
Likewise, Evolution (and for me, the term Darwinism is synonymous, even if some of his details continue to be ironed out today) is also a theory. It's one I find particularly attractive, and it's perhaps one of the most important ones of the recent 200 years because it allows us to see nature self-organising in a deterministic yet 'organic' way. You can apply the ideas that spring from Darwinism to particles of gas forming galaxies in space, to the operation of businesses and organisations, to the changing political landscape of the planet. Sure, I'm loosening up the concept at little here, but Darwin was the first person ever to suggest a rational explanation for the way things self-organise, which for me makes him one of the most brilliant figures in man's history. All of this is evident, elegant and should be marvelously obvious. However, it is still *only* the best theory we've got until something else comes along that appears to be a better fit to our observations. That time may never come, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to think complacently.
Teaching children 'facts' is perhaps what I disagree with since there are so few real facts around. One man's fact is another man's indoctrination. Sure I think it's better to teach evolution rather than creationism. It's evidently a better, more useful theory that fits the observed phenomena, but it is not fact.
I'm not trying to argue semantics, but want to come back to The Scientific Method, and remind you that worshipping Sacred Cows, of whatever kind, is much more dangerous than having an incorrect view of how the world formed 6000 years ago
