creationism is best for the science classrooms

I will first make my argument for why creationism should be taught in classrooms and then I will refute my opponents arguments. a. Creationism does a better job explaining how the universe came into existence. Evolutionists say that the universe came into existence by chance. But according to Roger Penrose of Oxford University, he has calculated that the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123). That number is inconceivable. The odds are so against a life permitting universe that it is like a criminal (representing the universe) is about to be executed by a firing squad (representing odds against life permitting universe) and then the members of the firing squad all miss. People claim that it happened by chance. Creationists say that it is ludicrous to think it happened by chance. Why? Because something feels rigged. It is completely logical to believe that there is an intelligent designer especially since everything is so complex. On the other hand, it is crazy to call all of this simple chance. So creationism by far does a better job explaining why there is a universe. b. Creationism fits the evidence just as well as evolution does (if not better). The evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchical tree in the fossils. But this can easily give evidence for a common designer. The "clear, organized arrangement of living things into groups and sub-groups is evidence for intentional forethought. For instance, man-made vehicles are obviously intelligently designed, and yet we can organize them into a clear tree structure, with groups inside groups. For instance, we have the main groups: airplanes, buses, trains, ships, and automobiles. Inside of automobiles we have cars, trucks, minivans, SUVs, jeeps, etc" (http://www.christcreated.com......). Evolutionists are always bringing up the fact the chimpanzees and humans share common DNA and then make the assumption that they have a common ancestor. But it is also obvious that this could also mean that they were both created by the same designer. c. Creationism teaches people that we have a purpose in life. Without a creator, there is no purpose in life. There would be no point to cure or help people since it wouldn't achieve anything. All people would just die and we would be no better than the animals. So I think it is better for people to be taught that they do have an actual purpose instead of what evolution teaches us. Therefore Creationism is best for science classrooms. Rebuttals: "In the case of the theory of evolution it is no more a "theory" than there is a theory of gravity." First I would ask my opponent to define what he means by evolution. If he is referring to the fact that we have descendants that lived earlier than us...this is okay. But if my opponent is saying that we all share a common ancestor, or that humans were once something other than humans...that is something that is not a fact unless proven otherwise. "In the case of creationism, the only thing I see it being effective at is giving a nice (depending on your definition of nice) story to those who find comfort in the delusion of a belief in God. Adam & Eve, the snake, Noah and his arc, etc. are all not real." It should be noted that my opponent has just stated in a subtle way that God does not exist. I now ask him to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God is a delusion since this is something he claimed in this debate. As for Adam and Eve, I would like my opponent to prove or give evidence that Adam and Eve did not exist. I do not like unsupported claims. This is going to be an enjoyable debate. I now await for my opponent's reply.