Changes

In the first case, evolutionists argue that creationism should not be taught in the public schools because it is fundementally regligious in nature and not science.  Creationists argue that evolution should not be taught because it is bad science or because it is an anti-theist ideology dressed up as science.<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=2}}</ref>  In the second case, concerned parents, educators, scientists, and other interested parties argue that creation science and intelligent design are not scientific; rather, they are viewed as thinly disguised schemes to introduce religion to the classroom.  In the United States, recent court decisions have affirmed this position, consistently barring the introduction of creation science and intelligent design into public science curricula

In the first case, evolutionists argue that creationism should not be taught in the public schools because it is fundementally regligious in nature and not science.  Creationists argue that evolution should not be taught because it is bad science or because it is an anti-theist ideology dressed up as science.<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=2}}</ref>  In the second case, concerned parents, educators, scientists, and other interested parties argue that creation science and intelligent design are not scientific; rather, they are viewed as thinly disguised schemes to introduce religion to the classroom.  In the United States, recent court decisions have affirmed this position, consistently barring the introduction of creation science and intelligent design into public science curricula