**TL;DR - Creationism should be taught in schools but in a philosophical, rather than scientific manner** The main premise of Creationism is that everything we experience has originated from divine creation or a divine creator. There are also different degrees of Creationism, some purist interpretations (from Genesis for example) and others that adapt to modern scientific knowledge, like the idea of The Big Bang. Creationism means different things to different people in different religions. What I’m trying to say is that it’s subjective. It’s theological and philosophical, so I think it should be approached in this way when it’s taught in schools. The reason why I take a mixed approach is that personally, I believe it should not be taught in any scientific discipline in schools but could be taught and discussed in religious and philosophical studies. I personally think when approaching something so philosophical as Creationism, providing a space for constructive positive discourse is a necessity. The best knowledge comes from debate, opinion and understanding. Tolerant societies come from discourse. So to eradicate Creationism as a concept from schools seems a bad choice as it promotes no positive discourse. Freedom of speech is important to keep in mind when discussing things like Creationism as some may believe in it wholeheartedly. So, as a result, to deny schools the option of teaching it, even as a theological concept, seems dystopian and just unfair. I believe there is merit in allowing teachers to educate students on a broad range of opinions, religions and interpretations, including Creationism.

**TL:DR: In public schools, at least, the teaching of creationism must not become an indoctrination of religion.** The teaching of creationism represents a debate beyond nature science or philosophy. While the word on the surface only refers to a belief in intelligent design as human origin, in practice, it always comes with a religious context. In other words, it seems impossible to teach creationism without involving some religious beliefs. In such a case, this teaching requires a discussion of the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state represents a crucial political concept. It isolates civil life away from religion and avoids the rise of a state-backed religion. As the most famous example of this principle, the United States adopts the separation of church and state in its constitution. As a result, no government-funded organization, public schools included, can have religious instructions. The U.S. The Supreme Court [has affirmed the religious-netural nature of public schools in many cases](https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/03/religion-in-the-public-schools-2019-update/). However, some justices have voiced support for the “teaching of religion”. For example, one can teach the bible as literature, offer classes on comparative religious studies, or teach the role of religion in civil society. Overall, while public schools do not have to shun religion entirely, they must prove their handling of religion is neutral rather than supportive towards a specific faith. In many cases, the separation principle has directly applied to the teaching of creationism. In [Edwards v. Aguillard](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/85-1513), The U.S. Supreme Court banned a Louisiana law from mandating creationism as an alternative theory in biology classes. Hence, any teaching of creationism should not happen in a natural science class. It should not be promoted as a “fact” but rather only as an “opinion.” Furthermore, public schools must not show any endorsement of the opinion. Overall, while public schools do not have to shut creationism out of their teaching, in practice, they must follow strict restrictions in doing so to maintain the separation of church and state.

Creationism is a pseudoscience and inherently religious. There is nothing worthwhile in teaching it, from a philosophical perspective, or especially from a scientific perspective

Is it creationism if you believe that everything was the plan and making of God thus you can believe in evolution and still be a creationist

Folks, be careful in interpreting the wording of this opinion. The opinion doesn't say, "Religion should not be taught in schools". RELIGION can be studied academically. In my world cultures class, we covered the history of Islam. It was great. CREATIONISM is a separate issue. Creationism presupposes a creator. It's a poisonous topic that has absolutely no place in school. Especially in being compared to actual theories that try to explain how we ended up here (e.g. the big bang, abiogenesis, natural selection, embryology, etc)

Creationism is an important part of understanding one of the world's largest religions, so it should absolutely be taught. A child should be able to discern ideas that they do or do not agree with, and I see no problem in teaching it provided it's not taught as the sole de facto explanation. Religious creation myths are valuable information, but not a substitute for scientific explanation.

I think there's no reason not to be taught about anything, as long as there is an explanation as to why it is wrong.