I am an unlikely defender of our schools and colleges, but try this.
It can be argued that before the nineteenth century, all Christians were creationists, although even this can be disputed. However, since 1950, modern creationists have built up a series of claims that are both unknown to traditional Christianity and rejected by modern science. They claim that the number of Biblical kinds does not change. But what is a Biblical kind? There is no accepted definition. Overall, creationists don't have a coherent narrative to present.
The purpose of science classes is not to present beliefs but to present theories which are the best current explanation of the available evidence. There is no doubt that many species that once lived are now extinct. There is no doubt that species have changed in the past and that they continue to do so.
Do you doubt that modern medicine saves lives? Medicine draws on biology, a science whose conclusions creationists don't accept.
There is no proof to macro-evolution. Nobody has ever seen two of one kind produce another kind. it is one thing to have a bird produce a bird, but evolution's claims far exceed that. That is not science, that is belief. So, you are selling one belief over another belief.
The big bang suggests that without cause nothing suddenly exploded and produced everything. There is no precedent. A Bible-believing Christian says God produced everything from nothing. Furthermore, explosions have never been known to produce order. They produce chaos. Yet, your science claims the exact opposite happened with this explosion that happened without a cause. Which is more reasonable--even within the context of what science claims to promote? So, the big bang without God requires far more belief than a big bang theory with God as the cause.
When did science cross from reason to unreason? When it demanded that God, the most likely cause of everything, had to be taken out of the equation.
Creationism is also belief. That is true. Nobody can go back and prove how it all began and nobody, despite many fraudulent attempts has ever produced a missing link to show the movement from an ape to a human, for example. You have to believe one source or the other. Everyone has that choice. But, for you to say one is belief and the other is "science" is clearly wrong if you could take a step back and look at the evidence.
The study of different disciplines of science, like biology, has produced much good. I don't think science is all bad, because some scientists deceive others, just like I don't believe all Christianity is bad because some professing Christians--who may even be deceived themselves--deceive others.
Biology has taught us many things. Drug companies make a lot of money off those medicines. Some that hurt people badly are also marketed until pulled, because money talks over ethics often. Biology also helped us learn how to kill unborn babies as well. Biology participated in helping us learn how to gas people. Just because biology oversteps its bounds and just because biology often is used for evil, just like religion, doesn't mean you throw it out.
So, when you choose to teach only one belief, you are rubber stamping that belief to ignorant children who think their teacher is the source of knowledge. I know teachers and I was a teacher. They aren't the source of knowledge. But, that is what little kids think. So, when we only present one side (regardless of which is correct), we predispose them to that side.
In the public sector, tax payers, which include God-believers (which includes creationists) have an equal right to have a general creation view presented in contrast to the non-creationist viewpoint or choice to go to a publicly funded school that presents the creationist view.
In contrast, in the private sector, where people pay to have their kids privately educated by people, who in theory, share their values, they have the right to have demand that whoever is teaching their child reflects their views. They are paying and expecting that.
And, there are private schools that have nothing to do with God and they are free to promote evolution all they want. They are private institutions.
But, public institutions, it needs to be both sides fairly presented.
