I see you on these threads all the time, so I know you find this subject fascinating to debate. I bet you learn a lot about both the subject, and your fellow citizens from such discussion and debate. Let the kids do the same.
It really does not need to be not all that complicated.
Not, it is not complicated. Science operates under a particular set of rules, the scientific method. These (in short) define what science studies and how it studies it. So how would you like science to "acknowledge those beliefs?" As superstition? Myth? As being unsupported by science? Do you want a full evaluation, as occurs in science, of, say, the stories of a global flood or the tower of Babel? I would guess that you would not be happy with the result.
To be true to its methods, science would have to say that there is no scientific evidence for creationism and ID. Is that what you want? You want science to detail various religious beliefs and then say that there is no scientific evidence for those beliefs?
Perhaps it is better to leave well enough alone.
Absolutely, all of the above.
I would guess that you would not be happy with the result.
Says who? Guessing without even knowing what I believe? Not very scientific of you, Coyoteman!
I recall my Science teacher outlining evolution theory, and then saying "And some say God did it - discuss!" And discuss we did. I find evolution fascinating, I find attempts at bible proofs fascinating. Back when I was more devout than I am now, I wrote a paper on possible natural phenomena that might have explained the Star of Bethlehem. I'd certainly like to sit in a class and discuss how the animals were not only fit on the ark, but fed and kept alive on it for 40 days as well, because I don't buy that one for a minute. :~)
I think we would all like 'science' to admit that it is poorly equipped to project its own set of myths back into the unobservable past.
'Science' does the exact same thing that it criticizes.