See the story here.
Ok, so a few points.
- The stomping out of creationism as an option presented at school levels, happening in the political arena, is a clear display of censorship based on fanaticism. To fanatically opposed something because you fear it'll be fanatical would actually be quite funny if it wasn't so sad.
- If the science of creationism is bad and unscientific, show us scientifically, right? I mean, an attitude of "it's not evolution so it's unscientific" doesn't display the empirical kind of science you want to supposedly promote.
- See my previous post on truth. If macro-evolution (pond-scum to man) is true, then presenting an alternative view in the scientific arena will stimulate thought, and it will allow our young future scientists to present a decent case against creationism. If however, it is not true, then you certainly have something to worry about because more holes will be poked into it. Is that what concerns you?
- To prohibit creationism to protect human rights? I'm actually struggling to read between the lines here. It could either mean, 1) we don't want young, scientifically justified creationists blowing themselves up in buses in central London.. or 2) we value our new evolutionarily-justified values and freedoms to do whatever we please without feeling guilty about a God, so we want to keep this and not have some creationist having a strong case. We don't want these young creationist students to come into parliament in a few years and change our laws to remove our self-serving freedoms.