Yes, I agree creationism is not science. A creationist would claim there is no evidence that could invalidate their claim. Therefore, it is not science.

Here is an example of alternative science that should be taught. Paul Steinhardt I believe his name, from Princeton, published a theory of the cyclic universe earlier this year. From what I have read, it is consitent with current observations of the universe (or at least as consisten as the Big Bang theory) and makes predictions distinct from the Big Bang theory that can be tested with future observations. It can be proven false or validated.

Granted, the cyclic universe has a long way to go to displace the Big Bang, and I am not so sure I buy it yet either. However, it seems to have at least earned a fair hearing.

If Creationism could pass this test, I would support teaching it along with Evolution. In this respect, however, creationism falls far short.

Rob