Well, yeah, because it's faith.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also faith.
But the belief without proof is put there to be challenged, rather than covering every choice with reasoning without data. The merits of this approach is that tradition is a part of culture, it has extensive peer review and may sometimes, by trusting weighted data over random one, provide a better base for an uninformed decision. Given I don't have the means to keep myself informed in every topic I may stumble upon, I prefer it while I accumulate real data, than having to build my reasoning from scratch. I also believe that if you prove that something is false you have better chance of taking it into consideration than memorizing the reasoning by itself.

To my defense, I wasn't really trolling, but you guys made me realize my true calling. What's a troll without people picking his teeth... And before I turn bitter, you should really ask yourself about that law the following 2 questions: "Why are those guys so into pushing a philosophical belief as something to look at in science classes?" and "Why are you defending the other perspective?"

We had three people showing the mess of religious creationism, the history of the debate you aren't capable of putting to rest, and why that philosophy reveals flaws in evolutionism and other scientific theories while being so wrinkled. The point was some of that had the merit of showing we don't know everything. And the conclusion is that beyond the things I know I have no control over, there are things I assume I have no control over, and maybe there are things I can't imagine i have control over, but something definitively has.

On the upside you are better defined as individuals than we are. Back here, it's actually hard to cut your roots and be an entirely different and unique individual. We fail when we are put against peer pressure, unless family legacy contains some exotic treats...
I for one have inherited my mother's (and uncle's) bad habit of presenting the opposite perspective to anything. It really bugs people.

Usually I reach a point where my perspective has been shared with my interlocutor, as I understand what you are referring. Before I declare myself beaten, as you had a better argument, I will mention only that I don't find religion entirely illogical, nor it's adherents deaf to reason. I believe the point they defend is worth defending not until the scientific community agrees upon the most likely theory, but until they can understand that the scientific theory has more merit than tradition or dogma.
So I wasn't talking about religious fundamentalists, I was defending creationist position from a philosophic standpoint, I respect it and I expect it to be treated not as point of divergence, but as a basis to be confirmed or refuted by a solid solution, just like evolutionism.

Ok so you are coming from the christian approach.
But what about the idea that life was created by an entity and given the model that for the last, say, million of years evolved to what's today? And by evolved I don't mean from ape to human. Let's assume primitives humans were also created in this process.
We have evidence that some of that doesn't add up. Let's add the hypothesis that whatever intelligence did it could theoretically hide it's traces in order to, say, conserve purity and independence of intelligence here. This is a wild shot, but is it plausible?
We were taught that faith is what guides us in the darkness, and that it guides decisions when there isn't anything to base your decision on. We use it to describe trust until we can identify it's statistical model. We use it to describe feelings and desires until we dip into psychology and chemical reactions. If you would rather flip a coin or roll a dice...

I have to agree, I didn't pick the right analogy.
My whole point was that science and knowledge is an ongoing process and shouldn't dismiss ideas or philosophies especially in corner cases.
I understand evolutionism and I know it holds true given all the hypothesis are true. Mutation and genetics are elements that validate the model, but you cannot assume or prove that an external factor couldn't have created the model in the first place. This is devil's advocate here, but why would you be comfortable with people excluding one of the possibilities just because they got their reasoning hinted in some tradition or belief.
I absolutely hate seeing people entangled in some rigid thinking because their religion says so, as they are incapable to enrich themselves just because they would rather defer to some dogma, but I hate more people that cannot accept a different perspective if it doesn't originate in whatever is approved by scientific forums. We lose in divergent thinking, in originality and spirituality, as we are incapable in acknowledging our limits and by extension our requirements in development.

Just until I get proof. I don't stop searching outside my cubicle, but I don't assume I understand what's out there.

In Romania we don't have bills with what gets taught in school, we have a ministry that pushes a curriculum and teachers who more or less ignores it. We were taught that pride is foolish and counter-productive, and that it's way better to healthily weigh perspectives even when the result proves us wrong. We still have the pride to never admit fault, but we acknowledge the winning reasoning.
If in United States there are, as we would say, more types of freedom, why isn't education free enough that each parent can contribute to their children's education with whatever they see fit? We call this "the seven years from home", and defends not only individuals and their particularities, but also community and family legacy, tradition. Kids shouldn't go through assembly lines, they need to be treated as evolving individuals, cultivating their spirituality and later on filling the gaps with rigorous knowledge, where the science holds.

God dammit how I need to mod you up.
Cosmology formed by uniting multiple disciplines and therefore has more theories than I'd like to know. Anyway... some of them feel like scientific proof that God exist and there is merit for both the data and the rationale used. If geekoid likes to defend a pure atheist point of view that's cool. But by science method of reasoning he should be absolutely certain that he can find an answer to questions like: What happened before the Big Bang? and Where all of Universe came from? Since I cannot defend with certainty any scientific answer that doesn't raise problem I personally default to faith, as I accept that I lack both evidence and intelligence to explain corner cases of science.
Creationism is not science, it's philosophy. And philosophy is not really crap, but rather a kick-start in knowledge. It has known limits and stops at the questions. And I give it merits where others would not because a well-chosen placeholder for gaps is for me preferable to the illusion that there's nothing there to challenge my reasoning.

Well you blew my funny remark, but it's ok. Thank you. You realize that when the games are ready and the word gets out people will try to buy it, until they find them advertised as free. FSF is an example of civic sense in the global village, it's a shame that so few get it. I'm looking forward to see the results.

I agree with your point of view, but from a spiritual point of view all religious communities agree that we lack the inner resources to guide ourselves for the better. Think of it as you're the one claiming global warming needs irrefutable proof when some concerns are proposed for study. You see them as trying to do something fishy, or waste time, while they see you as being ignorant and malicious. You should push your objections with an argument they understand.

Well I give merits to the scientific method, but it's not really healthy to expect it to explain everything. Some people have faiths/confessions/beliefs beyond what they can prove. For the simple minded, as we're not all of us geniuses, it's a way to adhere to moral principles and describe a comfortable personality. The upside is that people unsuitable for science exploration won't run amok challenging all the rules and questioning everything, and the downside is that they'll prefer not to think using scientific method rigorously. This usually happens.
As for presenting creationism in science class, the only way that would be alright to happen is by defending some of it's merits in cosmology. Otherwise I agree with you: It's unsuitable for a science class and should be treated as philosophy, rather than scientific discipline. Here in Romania, as the official religion is orthodoxy, we have religion classes in schools. More than that, in my college there is a cosmology discipline taught by a philosopher, a teologist and a math teacher putting in front of the students the merits of different philosophies and limits in human knowledge. We were taught to question both traditional religious teachings and science theorems in a way that isn't disruptive in our environment/community and while respecting each other's choice.

... when is the release date and where can I buy it from?

Well some cosmologists aim for a compromise, why the hell shouldn't all be presented and let each kid/student/person/parent choose and pursue. They did it to my generation and it wasn't that bad... I mean some cosmological theories cover the fact that we evolved to this point, but that the Universe was created by some omnipotent being, a level of intelligence that ensured the event with minimal chance of us being here happen (did I just write that?).

If Raspberry supports Python and C++ some UML-based toys could be brewed for the rascals, but otherwise the full programming power will be available to anyone AND using an editor or ide of their choice. This is the Unix approach and I kinda hate it, but I'm not the majority...
As for teachers, well, you could blame the plethora of architectures, their non-conformance and inconsistencies (take any ARM dev board, and just buy another from another supplier), not the software. Maybe the buzz around Pi, in time, will generate a standard or a framework for the damned things. Wishful thinking, I know.