I asked a question.

Which of these should be a taught in a biology classroom? Evolution, creationism, theistic evolution, all of the above, none of the above?

I was expecting some extreme stupid and here it is:
--------------------------------
Macroevolution - No
Microevolution - Yes

My reason for Macroevolution not being taught is that it is heavily based on faulty science and connections of connections to other bad sciences. What I mean by bad science is that instead of following the evidence, they make assumptions and force the evidence to match. Real science takes evidence and draws a picture from it. This brings me to microevolution. I believe this should be taught as it is witnessed every day. It is clearly a real thing that I can mix one species of horse with another and get a mix. This has been witnessed for thousands of years by man. Macroevolution even to many in the science community is a foolish pathway, regardless of the religion, culture, or creed of the person.
--------------------------------
I was nice to the brain-dead uneducated moron and I wrote this: I suggest read "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago biologist.
--------------------------------
The fucktard wrote "That book focuses on natural selection as being factual, which I just agreed above. A type of dog and another type of dog can mate and make a different type of dog, but a dog will not become a whale over time. No evidence of macroevolution exists. I'll read it though if I can get my hands on it."
--------------------------------
These idiots for Jeebus love to invoke dogs for some reason. They think evolution means every species evolved from a dog.

I wrote this:
--------------------------------
Amazon is your friend. A nice thing about Amazon is the customer reviews which I recommend. By the way whales evolved from a land animal that is now extinct. The fossil evidence for this transition is overwhelming and DNA sequencing confirms the whole thing.

I can't imagine why anyone would think after four billion years of natural selection, zero new species would develop. I also don't understand why people throw out 150 years of scientific progress and replace it with a magical fantasy.

This is just plain dishonest: "Macroevolution even to many in the science community is a foolish pathway."

"What I mean by bad science is that instead of following the evidence, they make assumptions and force the evidence to match." You insulted all the world's scientists and you obviously don't know how science works.
--------------------------------
Science deniers apparently think there are real scientists who want throw out science. And like this asshole the creationists like to insult scientists.

Somehow I managed to write all that stuff without saying "Why are you so fucking dense? Grow up you fucking moron."
--------------------------------
There were some answers written by normal people:

Well since its a biology class, only biology should be taught.
I shouldn't have to break it down any further than that - but creationism and intelligent design nonsense have zero to do with biology.
Private Detective Eddie Valiant who also wrote this comment for a creationist fucktard: "Stupidity should be painful. Your body should be alerting you to your debilitating condition right now."
--------------------------------
Evolution because it is true, is supported by a wealth of evidence and underpins all biology.

Creationism - well first which one do you think should be taught? There are many creation myths. That is what they are - myths. Creationism is not science and has no evidence. It has no relevance to biology.

Theistic evolution is creationism in disguise and so my comments on it are the same as those for creationism above. Creationism should not be taught, period.
MARK