I am not for teaching creationism in a science class. But to mention it as a competing theory is not that terrible and might actually help kids to think about the issue and help science rid unscientific thinking in the end. And you have to look pretty hard to find some state or textbook in which even includes this as a competing theory.
Have you ever being in science classes, George?
If you have, then you would know or should know that whatever you learn, be that physics, chemistry or biology, you already have enough on your plate, without learning something that not science.
Creationism is not science, so it is a competing "scientific theory". Creationism is solely based on some religions, and some religious myths (note that not all religions have creation myths).
The Genesis creation is nothing more than allegory and myth, without any real understanding of how nature work, because the creation myth is nothing more than "God did it" superstition. How is believing in the Genesis Creator deity any better than believing in myths of the Sumerian Enlil and Enki, or the Greek Zeus, or the Norse Odin, or the Hindu Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, or the Shinto Izanagi and Izanami?
Seriously, if people has to learn Judaeo-Christian God in science classroom, then would it be fair to omit Greek, Babylonian and Hindu creation stories? Where does it end?
If we were to allow for every creation myths in the science classrooms, then teachers would no longer be teaching science, instead you would have a class for comparative religions or comparative mythology?
Instead of teaching biology, you would be telling how some all-powerful being creating man from dust. Is biology in the business of teaching baseless mythology?
If kids want to learn religion, then let them enrol in subject on religion or theology. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, and have no place being taught as one.
.
