In this case I dont think Sinij is being stupid, he has a valid point that as far as science goes there is no alternate theories to evolution regarding human development. The forces injecting creationism into science classes are entirely cultural.

If we want to talk about creationism, intelligent design, how it might have happened, or all sorts of related things - it should be done in either sociology or philosophy classes.

But it should not be taught as science, and I do think that treating cultural opinion the same as we treat science is a very very bad precedent. A precedent that was set throughout the Middle Ages in fact.

As an aside, I have said for years that philosophy education should be taught from an early age. I also think there can be some logic to some of the intelligent design theories, and have no problem with those ideas being taught and debated in school... along with Hume, Kant, Plato, Hegel, Rand, Mises, Descartes & etc.

It just needs to be compartmentalized and treated for what it is. And what it is, is not science, its either philosophy or culture, sometimes a bit of both.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)