you did actually acknowledge my assertion that the notion of creation is, indeed, being taught as "unscientific"

I should, perhaps, make this my last post on the subject because, after all, I'm in the UK, so what people in Kansas do is not really my responsibility (*grin*).

I do accept that there is careless talk and that it is probably very widespread. People everywhere, in schools, on the Mudcat and in general conversation, do not usually monitor what they say with legal precision. So, yes, I'm sure many teachers respond to various statements by saying something like "Science doesn't go along with that" without making clear whether science contradicts it, does not support it or merely does not require it. I know I've made that sort of error many times on less emotive subjects than this one.

But there is a very precise reason why I would say creationism is unscientific, which is that it does not contain a test whereby it would declare itself invalid. Darwin's Origin of Species, for example, contains many sentences of the form "if such and such is found, then this theory will be disproved." (I don't have a copy to hand, so I'm afraid you'll either have to trust me or look them up yourself)

If there is such a test for ID, I'd be glad to hear it, but as I say, as a UK-dweller, I feel I've said my bit.