Should creationism be taught in schools? (Evolution vs Creation)

opening: scientific theorem, creationism is not a scienceI apologize for the inconvenience that i jumpstarted the debate too early and have started debating when i should've agreed to the debate terms. i hope that this will create more thoughtand effort into our debate.Firstly, I concede that creationism is not backed by science or evidence because creationism is a faith based belief that cannot be taught as a fact. Like i have previously stated, Creationism is not a science and should not be treated like one. Con has tried to disprove a belief with science, even though creationism the people who believe in creationism are devoted to it completely by faith. Throwing facts and figures at a belief is like shooting a gun to make plants grow, there is no function. It's true that God or Jesus didn't write the bible, but it is the belief that those who were under his influence did, and God gave those people the necessary knowledge. Also, con's claim that gravity is a theory as well is false, since gravity is a force and phenomenon described explicity in Newton's law of universal gravitation.Evolution"I believe the scientific theory of evolution is currently the only logical explanation for our existance today"Utilizing the exact words con has provided me, evolution in con's argument should be the only logical explanation for our existance today. Con also failed to address my point on biogenesis. If evolution truly does explain all existence of organisms, where did they all originate from? Since biogenesis is an integral part of evolution, it is a topic that is imperative that Con should address. I extend my evidence that Evolution does not explain our existence without the need of other scientific postulations and theorems and evolution in itself is not an explanation at all. Evolution is not the only logical explanation for our existance today. Also, Evolution is a theory, Macroevolution has never been observed but the steps needed to take it have evidence to back it up.educationCreationism is a footnote in today's education system and it should remain a footnote. Creationism represents a major belief that encompassed much of the world's thought since ancient times and it is still a major belief held onto by many people. Even if creationism isn't real, it should still be taught on the grounds that it was the accepted thought for many past generations. Creationism should still be taught, not in science class, but in classes such as social studies like in a history class for example. Creationism is not a religion in itself, but a religious belief. It’s important for children to know all ways of thinking.debate Trying to argue that evolution is right and that creationism is a false dichotomy. One is the theory of how organisms change into their current form, the other is an belief that there is a divine being(God in most instances) has created everything. Our debate does not come down to whether or not God or Evolution has created Humans, rather, it comes down to whether or not Creationism should be taught in schools. It also comes down to whether or not creationism is a viable explanation for our existance. conclusionIn conclusion, i would like to reiterate my previous statements that Con has failed to address. I should not have to prove that Creationism is right and that evolution is wrong. Rather, i must show that creationism is a viable explanation. But a viable explanation" is not universal since an explanation is merely a statement that makes something clear, both creationism and evolution can make our existence clear to many different sorts of people, therefore having only one explanation is illogical. Since i must present a case that creationism is a "viable explanation," then i will state that God created everything. That is a statement that makes something clear to someone(how we came about) and is viable since it is feasible for a mind to believe as millions have previously accepted this belief. Con has repeatedly tried to attack this position with scientific evidence which i refuse to address because i have already stated originally that creationism is a belief and not a science, it is based upon faith and not by observations. scientific analysis of a a religious belief is ludicrous. Con has supported a scientific theory with scientific evidence. My job is not to prove creationism, it is to show that it can be a viable explanation. Like it or not, hundreds of millionions of people believe in creationismsourceswww.wikipedia.orghttp://www.talkorigins.org...