Oh my, how the pious ramble when their superstitions are exposed 
McWay, as long as people in these United States want their children to learn real science in school and not be made stupid, creationism will never make it into the class room.
Unfortunately, too many of America's kids have been "made stupid". And, it has virtually nothing to do with the issue of Creation vs. evolution. You have kids these days who can barely spell either word. I went to Christian schools from grades 1 through 12 (with a few brief exceptions) and did well in all my science classes (phyiscs, biology, chemistry, etc.). When I went to a non-Christian college, I took similar courses at that level. For some strange reason, my belief in Creation didn't hinder my grades. I wonder why.
One of those exceptions was 10th grade, where due to financial problems, my mother had to send me to public school to finish that year. I took biology at the public school, just as I did at the private school. The only major difference between the book were issues involving the age and origin of the planet and life on it. Same frog-dissecting, same insect-collecting, etc, etc. Guess who finished #1 in that class (and to whom many of my classmates wanted to sit at test time).
"Real science" is simply the study of natural phenomena, something that does NOT require a materialistic philosophy. Or have you forgotten, as Loco has pointed out multiple times, that many of the early fathers of science were Creationists.
In fact, I mentioned one indirectly, when stating the quotes of evolutionists, Louis Pasteur, this would be the guy who came up with the process (named after him) that makes your milk (and, subsequently your protein powder) safe to consume. But, he believed in Creation; so he didn't learn any "real science". Oh, and vaccines for some of the deadliest diseases? Pasteur with his lack of "real science" developed those, too.
After he took apart the idea of spontaneous generation, evolutionists themselves admitted that they have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that life came from nothing and that the only reason they still claim it did is to avoid the admission of Creation. That's not scientific; that's dogmatic, philosophical and, dare I say "religious". The only difference would be the "religion" would be humanism (man worshipping himself).
As for your claims of my "venting anger", it would be more disappointment, moreso, because ID is too passive. If you suggest that life was designed, the next step is inquiry as to who designed it. If anger is what you're craving, perhaps you should take a gander at some evolutionists, when they discover that (according to certain polls), despite their best efforts, only a relative handful of people buy their godless explanation for life on this planets. Of course, this often results in their calling such people all sorts of names.
Or, look at some of the reactions that some evolutionists have had, toward the initial success of that Creation Museum.
