Guest columnist Matt Marshall is a writer in Cleveland Heights. He serves on the board of the Center for Inquiry–Northeast Ohio, a nonprofit that promotes science, reason and secular values. He argues against teaching creationism in public schools.

The theory of evolution has butted heads with religious doctrine ever since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. But while the science community has come to accept evolution as scientific fact, plenty of laypeople continue to reject it. Tellingly, they do so not because evolution is bad science, but because it is bad religion. Evolution just doesn't jibe with the notion that humans are the special creation of a supernatural being.

This is all we really need to know when deciding if creationism should be taught in public school science classes. It should not be, simply because it is not science.

This is not the radical or subjective assertion creationists would have us believe. Until creationists can demonstrate empirically that their creator god exists, their story has no claim on science. Several courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—have likewise looked upon the "science" of creationism and found it wanting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that "creation science" is a religious belief and thus an unconstitutional addition to any public school science curriculum. In 2005, the creationist spawn Intelligent Design met a similar fate in U.S. District Court (Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District).

The current ruse of "teaching the controversy" and examining "the strengths and weaknesses" of evolution (which is, after all, "just a theory") is the same old "balanced treatment" deemed unconstitutional by the federal court in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982). And it comes despite near universal acceptance of evolution by today's scientists (97% according to a 2009 Pew report). It comes, that is, despite the fact that there is no controversy.

But sadly the creationists' blind rush against science and the law continues to gain traction. A 2005 Pew poll found that a whopping 64 percent of Americans are comfortable with having creationism taught alongside evolution.

Some have attributed this to Americans' treasured notion of fair play. Maybe. But it is also, most certainly, the result of widespread scientific illiteracy. Teaching an array of views seems harmless when you think scientific theories are little more than guesses, instead of the testable, predictive, evidence-supported explanations they are. The erosion of science education—and education, generally—only perpetuates further erosion.Which suits creationists and their religious right allies just fine.

With fewer people understanding what constitutes science, with fewer understanding or appreciating the constitutional prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion, it's easier to convince them that the creationists' religious freedom—and not scientific integrity—is what is really at stake in the creationist fight. (It's also easier, incidentally, to dissuade people of other inconvenient scientific truths: Global warming? But it's freezing outside!)

Ohioans need to remain vigilant. Just last year failed Ohio House Bill 597 attempted to add creationist loophole language to the state science learning standards. And backers promised to take up the legislation again this session.

Science is the best tool we have for understanding our universe, and students need—and deserve—a quality science education that will help them navigate and care for an increasingly complex world. Part of ensuring that education is keeping it free from religious interference.