There are numerous admirable philosophies expressed by the good Pixie people here but few, if any, seem to have a firm grasp of just what the reality of applying these ideas in schools would be.

As the somewhat farcical and, in my opinion somewhat unhelpful (though nonetheless true), example of the Spaghetti Monster gives, as soon as you start advocating the teaching of numerous possibilities (whether in science classes, religion classes or something inbetween) it becomes impossible to draw a line.

'Intelligent Design' in its many guises is so resoundingly ambiguous as to make any claim for it to be a science obsolete. Strictly speaking the many formulations of it include all sorts of possibilities, from genuine theistic evolution, to Spaghetti Monsters. It would even be easy to argue that Evolutionary Theory is a case of Intelligent Design if you classed the 'Laws of Nature' which might be said to govern it as 'intelligent'.

People talk of the fairest way being of teaching the 'major' beliefs. But how are we to define 'major'? There will always be someone who if offended at having their beliefs rejected as not worthy for teaching.

Quite apart from this dilemma I think it's genuinely impossible to teach these sorts of things to young people - certainly without a major restructuring of the education system. The issues involved are just too complex. When the majority of adults who enter into the debate haven't considered issues such as where any deity might exist, how disembodied souls are supposed to exist and how biblical interpretation makes even 'Creationism' hard to define how are we supposed to expect those in high school to do it?

I would much rather see the emphasis of education be put on teaching children how to critically analyse, how to respect matters of opinion and letting them decide the rest for themselves. Unfortunately this only works in a world where parents can abide by the same rules - but that's a different issue.