The teaching of creationism in public schools in the US is justifiable

"I see what you're saying, but I still feel like it's not really a valid argument for this debate because this debate only regards creationism. Evolution will no doubt come up, but it is not a central point." - I haven't made it a central point but the two concepts are completely related. They are the two most popular and most commonly accepted theories (despite scientists hating creationism) about how humans got here at this point in time. You can't deny that so you can't drop my argument. Therefore, it's only justifiable to also teach creationism because even highly merited scientists can't completely validate evolution and cannot completely debunk creationism. Besides, teaching it alongside evolution has no down sides if done within guidelines (refer to my C2). It's just presenting the other side of the spectrum which I've been saying will be a good thing. "That's a really existential viewpoint that is bordering on nonsensical. 2 2 = 4 every time. That is a provable fact. If you have two objects and then you get two more objects, there will be four objects. If you take sodium and react it with chlorine, it will produce Sodium Chloride. Now, I will agree that theories can't be proven, but they can be accepted. Like you mentioned, technically gravity can't be proven, but we all know it's true." - You misinterpreted my argument. There is a huge difference between facts, logic and theories. Theories cannot be proven. Sure, I concede that we all "know" gravity is true but that's not really a controversial subject. You don't hear about debates where someone is attempting to deny its existence. Creationism and theism, however... you hear a lot about someone supporting one or the other, usually due to their religion. Besides, we have no control over gravity so it's not like there's much we could do against it. Creationism and evolution are heavily determined by personal belief so there will be a lot subjective values thrown in. I said that earlier and it's an important part of this debate. Con concedes the debate when he admits that theories can't be proven, only accepted. I will talk more about this in my conclusion paragraph. "Actually, we can and should. It would be hard to find a scientists that believe in a geocentric universe, but that used to be what people believed, and I'm sure you can still find people who believe it. Also, I'm sure there are people who reject the atomic theory, so should they teach that in schools. No doubt you've heard of the "Faith healers." They believe that we should not use medicine to heal ourselves and just pray instead. Should they teach that in health class? People believe it, even though scientists reject it. The idea that we should teach something even though scientists reject is is ludicrous at best." - Testing the probability of healing through faith is completely possible. It can be set up and ran as an experiment to see if it's more effective than using medicine. As for the geocentric universe, we already know this isn't true. It's a FACT that the earth is spherical. Facts are not debatable and the people who choose to believe against facts are nonsensical. You've already conceded that theories can't be proven so your analogy is invalid because this whole paragraph centers on fact and testable, tangible things. "So, you take a poll of doctors, and they unanimously tell you that it's bad to smoke. Then you talk to random people on the street, many of whom are smokers. Who is going to give you a better response? The doctors, of course. They know what's good for your health. Honestly, I'm sure that, of those 44% of Americans, very few of them have an advanced degree in life or earth science. So, do you really think that it's appropriate to teach something that only a negligible number of experts accept? That's crazy, whether or not 44% of non-experts believe in it." - Technically, we can't prove that smoking directly causes anything bad. Doctors just say that it puts you at a higher risk for certain diseases. This is also testable and has been demonstrated many times. I'm sure we've all seen smoking statistics that show a normal person's chance for getting lung cancer compared to a smoker's chances. Creationism is still relevant due the amount of people that believe in it and it's only fitting to teach it alongside evolution. "There is a ton of empirical evidence supporting evolution, and there is next to none supporting creationism. We can't unequivocally prove one or the other, but we can, and did, get really close to it." - If there's so much, how come you didn't post any? We did get close to it? Link? Source? I'll have to drop this point and I kindly have to ask the voters to drop it as well because it's an empty argument. "It's actually not irrelevant at all. If you happened to read my argument, which, evidently, you did not, you would know that he was arguing exactly the same thing, and he made an excellent point. Please try again, and read the whole thing." - My argue of relevance for creationism was based off the statistics that 44% of people completely accept it. How many people do you think seriously accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Please, you're kidding yourself. It's completely irrelevant. "But we're teaching people science. Since, arguably, the main point of school (and definitely a major point) is to equip future generations with the ability to find jobs, so technically, yes, we are teaching scientists." - That doesn't make sense. 44% completely accept creationism and I doubt they are all unemployed. Not all jobs revolve around science, either. Teaching students both evolution and creationism doesn't harm them for the future. "Yes and no. I understand what you're trying to say, but the reality is that we have really strong scientific theories that virtually every scientist agrees with. Why would we teach students what scientists reject?" - I've explained this numerous times already. "Yes, let's. And while we're at it, we need to also open their minds to the views of the Flat Earth society, Faith healers, Skinheads, and Neo-Nazis because it would open their mind. Now, I'm not trying to equate creationists with Nazism, but the point is, while open-mindedness should be encouraged, there are many views which should not be encouraged. The scientific evidence that we were all created by a divine being is about the same as the scientific evidence that Jews are inherently evil (I happen to be Jewish myself, and I'm only evil sometimes). Now, I understand that this argument could be interpreted as far-fetched, so I'd just like to quickly sum up the heart of it. We can encourage open-mindedness, but if something is universally rejected by experts, you can't justify teaching it at school." - Nazism, faith-healing, and skinhead philosophies are undoubtedly harmful to teach. Nazism basically caused World War 2, faith-healing can be proved ineffective, and skinhead philosophies involve racism. Teaching creationism isn't harmful. It is justified because 44% of people completely agree with it and I've already justified the scientists v. people part of it. "Teaching creationism can no more be justified than teaching about a geocentric universe." - This was negated earlier. "One can believe what they want, but in science class, they teach science, and science has shown a resounding rejection of creationism. If the student chooses to reject what s/he learns in science class, that is their prerogative." - Exactly, so they can reject creationism if they want but plenty of people support it. Science can be swayed in numerous ways and people have found ways to argue against evolution [1]. Conclusion: I have refuted the con arguments and shown why teaching creationism is completely justifiable. Thank you for reading, vote pro. Sources 1. http://emporium.turnpike.net...