The flying spaghetti monster

A while back in the great state of Kansas, there was a debate over whether Creation should be taught in the classroom with equal time as evolution. One parent said they believed in the "flying spaghetti monster" and f.s.m.'s creation of the solar system and the universe and that the time should be split 3 ways between all 3 ideas in the class. If I was there I would ask if his religion or belief had over 1 billion followers like the most of the major religions. Then after he responded "no" I would of asked how many people have died for their belief in the flying spaghetti monster or how many crusades had been fought under the sign of the flying spaghetti monster. Which the answer would be - NONE. Then I would say even though you have your own individual belief as to the nature of the universe, since your ideas and not excepted outside of your own household, and they have no following or documentation there is no need to spend anytime covering this idea in the classroom. Thank you for your time and please check yourself into the nearest mental institution.
That was how it should have been handled, but somehow the spaghetti monster legend has reached a cult following (pun intended). Is it a good argument of why creation shouldn't be taught in a science classroom? No. If you are even a little religious, you have to subject yourself to all kinds of ideas that your religion isn't right or the idea that there isn't a God, so isn't it fair that science be subjected to the same type of examination. Being a scientist myself I think it makes it easier to understand math and chemistry and physics because everything has its place in the grand scheme of things and these disciplines make it possible for human beings to understand how things in our world work. After 10,000 or so years of conscious and collective thought only now are we realizing and explaining how things fit together and work. But any scientist that brings a theory forward has to be able to explain it and in my mind before it can be accepted it has to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt and then it should be widely accepted. However, the big bang theory has never been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, and even though evolution makes a ton of sense, it still doesn't answer all the questions. Let's assume for a second that creation is right. From a scientific perspective is in unreasonable to assume that when the Earth was formed that it was such an anomalous event that carbon dating or using some other type of half-life dating method would be inaccurate because of the extreme circumstances that surrounded the formation of the material. The other argument would be that, "Hey, God had to make the Earth out of something didn't he." I mean maybe all he had laying around where rocks that were 4 billion years old. How old do you think God is anyway? Man I should be a science teacher. Anyway, back to my original point I do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but I do believe that the big bang theory should be challenged because it is not widely accepted and when these young scientist go out into the world and start putting forth theories of how things work they need to be able to defend their work. Also they need to be able to challenge the work of their peers in an intellectual manner, especially if the other work is flawed. If kids are only taught one thing, and aren't taught to challenge ideas then they will not be good scientist and that is really the goal of the classroom turning out good thinking scientist. But I will make one more point. If science is right and there is no God, then when we die we are dead and that is the end. If creation is right, then there are going to be a lot of scientist in Hell.