Creationism and Intelligent design should not be taught in science lessons

Thank you for excepting the debate, even if it was just the result of Zippo's baiting :) I noticed a classic assumption of creationists. "First of all I would like to point out that the theories of evolution and the big bang are the only plausible alternative to creationism so I will attack them first." Just by attacking other theories, it does not strengthen the notion of creationism or support it's teaching. "These ideas are exactly what I called them, theories. There is no definite proof to show that they are true." Definition of theory: An explanation of concept/idea that is supported by evidence and/or many experiments/trials and is widely accepted by the scientific community. You are correct, there is no definite proof for these theories, but then again, there is no definite proof for ANY theory; this is a basic principle of science. If there was definite proof, it would be a scientific law. There are very few things that there is definite proof for in this world, everything is questionable, but science is in constant evolution. The most likely theory is mostly accepted until it is proved wrong and a new theory that is supported by the evidence takes it's place. It is the theory that is supported by the EVIDENCE that is used. My point is, there is no plausible or truly scientific evidence for creationism but there is a mountain of evidence for evolution and natural selection. "The processes of carbon dating are also questionable". How so? please give some evidence for this. Creationism says that the Earth is 6000 years old. However, Carbon Dating is reliable up to 60,000 years, and only then is it not able to provide accurate evidence. "evolution requires as much faith to accept as creationism." Science is not based on faith. Anything that requires faith is not science. 'Faith' is simply believing in it with no evidence or other merit of proof. Anything that is accepted into the scientific world needs evidence, and that is what it is based on, unlike creationism. "Couldn't God have made the Earth with age already on it? Thus making it seem as if it has been there for a much longer period of time." On that logic, God can do anything, so that is the answer for any question on creationism. It's not that simple I'm afraid. There needs to be evidence for this for a start, not even the primary source of 'evidence' for creationism, The Bible (which I do not think is evidence at all) supports this. The point I'm making is that you can make up anything to fit the evidence if you say God can do anything, so it is not a valid scientific argument. Creationism has so much evidence against it (which I am sure will be highlighted later on), but if it should be taught at all, it should be taught in Religious Education classes, not science. How would creationists like it if evolution was taught in RE as an alternative? Religion does not belong in science lessons because it has no scientific merit, and any other theory with that amount of evidence against it would be thrown out of any kind of education, but this is religion and somehow it escapes those rules. If you have any evidence for Creationism, and not just attacks on evolution, please tell. Thank you.