i read donutz post as a tounge in cheek way of saying if they taught creation in school scientifically it would be debunked. maybe i'm wrong.
No, you got it right. Now what I'm about to say might work better in Canada where the teacher's union, er, "federation" is strong enough to tell the government to take a hike, but... When creationists imagine their superstition being taught in school, they probably visualize it being taught by someone like themselves or their pastor. In fact if it's to be taught in science class, it should be taught by the science teacher. Who is more likely to be like Richard Dawkins than like Jerry Falwell. I think that if it could be taught in science class where the usual creotard tripe wouldn't have any traction, that would do more to bury creationism than anything else we could possibly do.
Oh, and since we live in a pluralistic multicultural society, you'd also have to teach Islamic creationism, Hindu creationism, Vedic, every variation on First Nations, Australian aboriginal Dream Time, and whatever else you can think of. And
give them equal time. Then your science teacher would explain that each and every one of these creationist beliefs has the same amount of evidence supporting it (i.e. "none"). Then the science teacher would explain the concept of evidence-based theories and the concept of modifying your beliefs to fit observed facts, instead of the other way around. And since one of the principles of science is to closely examine the evidence for validity, the science teacher would be allowed to (in fact obligated to) take a close look at the validity of the bible as a basis for a world-view. I've already gone over in other threads just how poorly the bible stands up to an objective analysis.