I would like to being by quoting a person called Neil Butcher, residing in Brighton, who wrote this in response to this BBC article on creationism.
The media wrongly describes this as a debate between creationism and evolutionary theory. In fact, the debate is between creationism and the whole of science as we know it. If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then: all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong; the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. For informed people to challenge accepted scientific orthodoxy on the basis of proper evidence is always healthy, but to debunk the whole of science on the back of a story passed down by some Iron Age goat-herders is just self-delusion.
Indeed, since the positions of many celestial bodies are based on basic triangulation, these distances being incorrect would discredit elementary geometry.
But that is only on the topic of "young-earth" creationism. As for creationism as whole, perhaps the notoriously politically-correct Europeans (and their Ministers of Education) should consider the following:
One aspect of the creationism/evolution debate that doesn't get enough play is the fact that it automatically favors the Judeo-Christian-Islamic worldview over all others. What about the rest of us religious nuts? What about the Vaishnavas who believe that the world we perceive is but one in an innumerable sequance of worlds, each created by Brahma, who sits upon the lotus flower which blooms, wilts and dies an innumerable number of times from Vishnu's belly button, Vishnu in turn himself coming into being and destroying himself countless times on the surface of the cosmic ocean? What about the Shaivas who say that all of that is true, except that the cause of Vishnu's rebirths is the cosmic dance of Shiva? What about the dozens of pre-modern Hindu views of the begining of the world which were not so lucky as to survive into the contemporary Vaishnava/Shaiva/Shakta religious division? What abbout the Buddhists who say that discussing the origin of the world is like a man shot with a poisoned arrow asking the name, occupation and hime village of the person who shot him before he will accept medicine? And what about those who will say that the world we see is hanging from the branches of Yggdrasil?
What about the religious atheists (like me) who think that all this talk of omnipotent, omniscient creator gods who give a damn about what we humans do is a ridiculous fairy tale that distracts from the real point of religion?
If Europeans are as hesitant to criticize religion for fear they might seem prejudiced, as the delightful Pat Condell insists, well then, me too! I want my world view taught to school children. Every person the the planet with an opinion on the matter send it in on a card and have it taught to school children. After all, the Pope's, Stephen Hawking's and my opinion are all of equal weight, right?