I've not seen anyone treat string theory as "this is true" though. At best it's "this is a cool idea and it might maybe possibly explain some stuff if anybody can ever figure it out."
Interesting point on the perspective of "this is true". Does that mean creationism would be an acceptable topic if not presented in the context of "this is true"?
I think the problem with creationism is that even though there may be some select science used as part of the theory, it quickly tends to then be used to state that because "this is true" (assumed but unproven truth) therefore this religious doctrine must also be true. I think that is somewhat implied even if not stated and that becomes an issue.
Otherwise, there really isn't much of a distinction between creationism and theories that the entire universe is a sophisticated computer simulation. They are both forms of intelligent design.
The computer simulation theory is a philosophical thought experiment, where the point is that you can't really tell the difference. Creationism is different because it states a theory (the species did not originate over time from a common ancestor) which is flatly contradicted by evidence. Neither theory does of course belong in biology classes, but one is more wrong and stupid than the other.
I think the problem with creationism is that even though there may be some select science used as part of the theory, it quickly tends to then be used to state that because "this is true" (assumed but unproven truth) therefore this religious doctrine must also be true. I think that is somewhat implied even if not stated and that becomes an issue.
Otherwise, there really isn't much of a distinction between creationism and theories that the entire universe is a sophisticated computer simulation. They are both forms of intelligent design.