http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

 

Wikipedia says;

 

"The status of creation and evolution taught in public schools can be the subject of substantial debate in legal, political and religious circles. The situation ranges from countries not allowing teachers to discuss the evidence for evolution or the modern evolutionary synthesis which is the scientific theory that explains evolution, to allowing evolutionary biology to be taught like any other scientific discipline.

While some religions do not have theological objections to the modern evolutionary synthesis as an explanation for the present form of life on Earth, there has been much conflict over this matter within the Abrahamic religions, some adherents of which are vigorously opposed to the consensus view of the scientific community. Conflict with evolutionary explanations is greatest in literal interpretations of religious documents, and resistance to teaching evolution is thus related to the popularity of these more literalist views.

In Western countries, the inclusion of evolution in science courses has been mostly uncontroversial, with the exception of parts of the united states. There, the supreme court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional. Intelligent design has been presented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but it has also been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court."

-This bit is bias and wrong for a number of reasons. One reason is that it assumes that either all scientists believe in evolution, or that all "scientific" scientists believe in evolution. We know today that many scientists are abandoning the evolution faith in droves and that many scientists have studied science for years and have not had a reason to believe in evolution.

Another very assy presumption is that it requires that evolution is a "scientific discipline", again undermining the creationist position that evolution is anything but science. Further attempts to marginalize creation and make evolution universal and scientific are murmured as a mantra.

Another presumption made is further marganilizing creation saying that it is "greatest in literal interpretations of religious documents, and resistance to teaching evolution is thus related to the popularity of these more literalist views." cleary ignoring every one of the many aspects of creation science insisting that it "a pseudoscience, and not related to science".

While Wikipedia usually offers some neutral, unbiased information on many different subjects, These are some very basic reasons why wikipedia is bias and dishonest in the creation science / evolution field and attests to humanist inclinations and  toxic liberal tendencies.