You are talking about Abiogenesis - totally different, but that's about the 3rd time I've said it now so I'm giving up.
Thats what its called, the damn name was escaping me.

I really dont think that Fallen Icarus understands the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. And without being able to understand that difference, we cant really have much of a discussion.

That being said, just because there is a lack of scientific evidence, doesnt mean that it shouldnt still be taught in some manner. Knowledge covers everything, both things proven, and things unproven, and it does a person a great injustice to hide from them anything that isnt "proven", as even if its completely off base, they should still learn about it, in a subjective manner with proper teachers(which is the key problem with alot of teaching in the US these days it seems)... a person needs a well rounded mind, and it only hurts them to hide and refuse to teach them about things.

IF creationism wasnt so deeply seated into religions, and if it wasnt the case that the only viable way to teach it is via a specific religions viewpoint on creationism, then I wouldnt have a problem with the government funding teaching it. THe problem is that it is tied into a few select religions, in regards to what would be taught, and we have a thing called seperation of church and state, and freedom of religion, which makes things things wrong to do. If there was any sort of viable way to teach the concept behind creationism without involving a "religion of choice" in it, then I would really think it should be taught in schools, properly. But you cant really teach people about a theory which consists of "a god(s) created everything. the end". It just doesnt work, and if you cant make it work without promoting the beliefs of a specific religion, then it cant be taught in public schools.