Oops - not sure what happened there.

I'm still not sure what you mean by 'origins science'. Wot's that then? Palaeontology? Geology? Genetics? Biology? Zoology? Anthropology? Physics? Chemistry? Maths? Astronomy?

All these disciplines rely on observable, testable and reproducible data for their raw materials so I'm guessing you don't mean any of them. There might be holes in evolutionary theory but the evidence is that evolution is correct . . . it's mechanisms are complex though and we don't understand how everything works at the moment. We're getting there though.

Like I said, science encourages questioning of it's most robust theories so anyone teaching science to children and not suggesting they explore and discover for themselves is not teaching science. No-one should accept any scientific proposition or theory without question; that was one of the first things learnt on my degree. Take no-one's word for yourself, examine the data, methodology and conclusions and decide for yourself. It's this self-questioning that Buddhism has in common with science and that's why I have great respect for buddhists and why they are still along way ahead of western science in terms of understanding how the mind works and how to achieve peace. A far cry from the combative adherents of Creationism and their Taliban-like rejection of considered thought and science, opting for a tabloid interpretation of fact and playing fast and loose with the work of people whom they can't hold a candle to intellectually (not that I'm a proponent of intellectualism as some sort of superior pursuit - as a musician I understand it's way overrated).

Keep creationism in RE classes and science in science classes and all's hunky dory, although I'm getting the impression those RE classes might demonstrate a certain bias . . .