"Why is there no Christian literalists demand for equal time in physics teaching for pointing out that quantum theory is only a theory after all? For they find nothing in the Bible which they can bend into an alternative account of very small particles. But they think they can find alternative theories in biology by a literal reading."

There are and there aren't.

First, because I went to a college that espoused a theology that accepts verbal plenary inspiration, I know several PHDs in physics. I know it's comforting to think of Christians as uneducated and backwards, but it is my experience that they are no moreso than the general population.

In fact, because of this interesting phenomenon of Christians in HUGE numbers giving up the fight to try to have their beliefs treated respectfully in the public schools, and moving onto home schools, it may be argued that the "Christian literalists", as you call them, are outstripping the general population in education. I know three families locally of these religious hayseeds whose children are attending or have graduated from the colleges of their choice (even two of them at Ivy League schools). Two of the kids entered highschool in their final years for athletic reasons and ended up a valedictorian and a salutatorian.

Anyway, within the confines of their church gathering, those interested in physics do often talk unscientifically about specualtions as to how the unanswerable questions of physics (string theory, etc) might tie into their understanding of the Bible. Do they confuse their speculation as science? I don't think so. Do they take comfort in the speculation? Maybe.

If physics teachers were claiming, with the same boldness that biology teachers have been teaching, that science disproves a creation, then perhaps the teaching of physics would be more of a hot-button.

"ID is just an alternative name for "creation science" to avoid the implications of the judge Overington (and similar) decision(s). It is a (to the outsider) ridiculous attempts to force one particular reading of one particular book upon science. ID 'scientists' start with the wished for result and then work backwards in a parody of science. They are not taken serious outside of a small group."

Take comfort in that if you wish, but it's not true. Several of those who are opening the ID can of worms are not religious (like Behe).

And ID is substantively different from creationism. Creationism can definitely find a haven in ID's potential, but ID makes no presupposition as to the nature of the "designer" --only that certain aspects of the universe make better sense in the probablility of a designer model.

"If all creation myths of all religions (and all different readings within one religion) would get equal time there would be no serious biology teaching at all. But the US Christian literalists are not for equal time for all different creation myths. They want the children to hear one (and only one) of these many myths on an eaul footing with a scientific approach"

That's not true either. In Kansas there is no demand for creation of any kind to be taught. The demand is, again, that the sciences not be claiming the unscientific notion that science has disproven a creation.