Dirt+Water = Life? Nope. Rather, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen compounds with electrcity and we're getting somewhere. Scientists proved this method to create organic chemicals a century ago. Creationists can't hide the facts that these experiments hold physical proof. Creationism involves devotion and acceptance w/o conscious reasoning. Don't get me wrong, Evolution is not an exact study neither. There are aspects that I find difficult to accept. Yet, I find that most Creationists tend to scrutinize what we can quantify; Evolution.
In my opinion, most Creationists believe Science to be a static dogma. Rather, I think it should be taken as a view of the universe that is always subject to change based on observation and speculation--the development of a hypothesis and its testing for physical data which we can provide theories.
In the end, teaching Evolution is the best one can do, as it establishes the experimental processes of experimentation, observation, and speculation. But teaching Creation in a science class is misplaced. Science is based on empricism not devotion. Creationism's place can only be in a class of Theology/Philosophy.
